Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 28 December 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2AF1A9108; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 12:46:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.758
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TH71WDIdZJeG; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 12:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5F1B1A9103; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 12:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F26A8A031; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:46:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:46:45 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Message-ID: <20141228204645.GB51125@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <62731176-0029-4CD6-B24B-6250F527FCB5@piuha.net> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEEICCPAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEEICCPAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M_otkDbEQpiMKQotuH7xWSB-_oQ
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:46:25 -0000

Hi Richard,

I thought I'd already covered this in detail, but a quick glance
didn't bring it up for me so I might not have explained this.  My
apologies.  See below.

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:
> And please note that the changes I requested to the sheperd write-up with
> respect to my statements have not been made (see below), so that write-up
> does not correctly reflect what I said during the disussions.

The shepherd's write up is how the shepherd communicates to the IESG,
and is not a consensus document or a product of the WG.  It is instead
a process document.  My understanding of the point of this document
(especially using the new-form template, which is the one I used) is
that it is to inform the IESG about the state of the WG's consensus,
and in particular to alert them to any areas of particular controversy
and difficulty.  If the IESG is concerned, they generally follow up
with the shepherd to learn more.

While it is important that the write-up not misrepresent the state of
consensus, it need not provide a lot of detail about what the
objections of indviduals are.  In this particular case, since during
IETF LC you raised your concerns with the way the write-up expressed
your objections, your concerns are on the record anyway.  There is
therefore no reason to alter the write-up, in my opinion.  

Best regards and many happy returns for 2015,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com