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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 07 January 2015 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6241A1A3B; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:32:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0dw3wcdGcEV; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625391A1A2E; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ft15so6480075pdb.4; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:32:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UEHSrZ/U+2kzZmiAQAxsPz0qb4nN1rMivedRBIScLrc=; b=TETeivM/GxeuHININ6SCkQffBCnBw/+HwspbVuT+58xqXIvqlw1MS13BP9yzDmEb4y 4J2p8AOi8B445ACPQ1+G5erA0KTcAomickBiaovC0tMsGTbLMqeKofiFqCIRWhPzKhda Qlb2txuqUxQOsOWxKfocDMwjtojz5XOs7892+pgwnrrwHIi6QagDyM+wx7pru4e41zDh LjwuSkDIf5i9s9FcgO2WTTjsFpgZ/GGYvDe744yTn05WFFQHrHI+zCEMAxleTd4J7Ijc ZxktlItB0RbjqCIoUkezmy8jOoSUFWB+CIU+o+9BR+B8AM7yS/zaKf7Xujt3HwCTmeme pvjw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id mr3mr8009855pbb.99.1420659135288; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7a6a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7a6a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id pm2sm2478470pbb.81.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 08:32:35 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Milton L Mueller <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>, "" <>, "" <>, IETF-Discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:32:18 -0000

Try "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations."


On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not
>> necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be negotiated -
>> that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding of the document, and
>> my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was that the IAOC could pursue
>> these or not, as it saw fit.
>> I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document discusses what
>> needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is necessary for the
>> transition. But the WG did not want to put into the document (a) detailed
>> contractual language as that is an IAOC task or (b) additional requests
>> beyond the ones listed in the document. However, the IAOC certainly is in
>> charge of all specific contract language already, and will be also in this case.
>> They will also consider any additional elements that they think will be useful
>> or needed, as they will always.
> Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the assessment of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states that the advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however. The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations."
> That's the part that is not correct. 
> The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The IAOC retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the near term negotiations. 
> I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough consensus. 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list