Re: Montevideo statement

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 10 October 2013 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D643621E815C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qC-fUFViXqIt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9558E21E814F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.255.252] ([203.167.240.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9AImvuT007540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:49:01 -0700
Message-ID: <5256F68D.7020509@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:48:45 +1300
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
References: <ABCF1EB7-3437-4EC3-B0A8-0EDB2EDEA538@ietf.org> <5256DE72.4010705@dcrocker.net> <BD554473-CD9D-4795-A125-A4E52EAEC68D@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <BD554473-CD9D-4795-A125-A4E52EAEC68D@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:49:55 -0000

On 10/11/2013 7:31 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Dave:
>
> On IANA:
>
>> Further, I believe there is no IETF context
>
> RFC 6020 and http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf


Jari,

The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather 
obscure document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, 
demonstrates my point that we lacked meaningful context and, in 
particular, you lacked mandate for speaking about this on behalf of the 
IETF.


And lest the end of the above sentence be taken as too stern or 
critical, I'll point out that I think we, the IETF, have been marching 
down a path of causing our 'leaders' to feel empowered in this way -- we 
have actually been moving towards kings and voting -- and hence, again, 
this is not a criticism of you or Russ personally.  If anyone feels 
compelled to apply the word criticism here, they need to apply it to all 
of us, the IETF community.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net