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

Jari Arkko <> Thu, 25 December 2014 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0B91A8855; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 10:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJJVCYmKm7eg; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 10:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EBF1A1A46; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 10:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8352CEE0; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:41:32 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BE92PUQCBMzN; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:41:27 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [] ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA29C2CCBF; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:41:27 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_734574A6-C5FE-413F-8BED-07CD52597A6F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Jari Arkko <>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:41:26 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 18:41:36 -0000


Thanks for your note. (Reproduced at the end of this e-mail for the benefit of 
others, just in case we still have an issue with the list not accepting your 
e-mails. I apologize for the trouble on that, by the way.)

I wanted to acknowledge the reception of your note, and the reception of the 
earlier requests, including the one requesting the co-chairs to provide (further)
justification for their conclusions. I also wanted to say that those were 
considered as a part of the process. A big part of the IESG’s role in
approving output from the IETF is making sure that the community
has been heard and that there’s broad backing for the particular output.
In this case the IESG has been comfortable with the making the decision
it has made, having considered the community discussions, including
your request. Personally, I am quite comfortable with the decisions in
the WG and IESG stages, and believe that they reflect community
(rough) consensus.

Hope this helps,


>> At the end of the working group process, although there was not
>> unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs
>> concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. The
>> document shepherd’s summary of the WG consensus for this document
>> can be found here:
>> shepherdwriteup/
> Please add that I requested that changes be made to that writeup so as to
> reflect correctly my statements.
>> 	• Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough
>> consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc Blanchet, Andrew
>> Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, John
>> Curran, and Jefsey).
> Please correct that to state that I requested that the co-chairs provide a
> justification for the rough consensus call.  Unless I missed something, the
> co-chairs did not provide that justification.
>> Richard was requesting a rationale for why
>> the conclusion was what it was, or perhaps rather disagreeing
>> with the rationale that was provided.
> No, I was requesting a justification of the rough consensus call.
>> 	• The IAOC has indicated that they are comfortable with the
>> direction the document gives for the IAOC.
> Please add here (or wherever else you think it would fit):
> * Richard Hill requested that the IESG defer its decision on this draft
> until the submission by the co-chairs of their justification for the rough
> consensus call.