IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [iucg] [IAB] [Ianaplan] IANAPLAN virtual meeting

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sat, 04 October 2014 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BD21A0191; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 01:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
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 KCGrebMGqVjR; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 01:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCF81A9005; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 01:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D502CC64; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 11:34:18 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WacpjiwEh6WI; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 11:34:09 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3362CC4D; Sat, 4 Oct 2014 11:34:09 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7733860F-6A32-48B4-9DA0-761DD77AC000"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140923000751.91C651A6F63@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 11:34:13 +0300
Message-Id: <1015C26A-D582-4049-8CA0-97C8A2114E01@piuha.net>
References: <EFB23F8E-A8E0-4513-93E2-9D01A165DAE1@viagenie.ca> <20140923000751.91C651A6F63@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/e8Qjyq8jq8tQdn9VOTQ9LyXTiSI
Cc: ianaplan-chairs@tools.ietf.org, IAB <iab@iab.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "iucg@ietf.org" <iucg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [iucg] [IAB] [Ianaplan] IANAPLAN virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
List-Id: internet users contributing group <iucg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:34:26 -0000

JFC,

I was initially not going to respond to this because I thought the answer was obvious, and since you got an answer from Pete. And because I was busy :-) But since you’ve raised it again later:

> Prior to this virtual global meeting, I would like to request an IANAPLAN IETF/WG charter update in two directions.

I do not plan to update the charter at this time. I believe the current charter is supported by IETF consensus, as determined by the IESG during the WG Review of this charter. Not only was IETF-wide WG Review held (with an announcement to other SDOs), but there was also a BOF held at the previous IETF meeting. In both instances, the community was insistent that the WG not be given the latitude to change current operational procedures.

Jari Arkko (speaking as the responsible AD for the WG)

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email