IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sun, 16 November 2014 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C321A6F63 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:49:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 rGGctwIrXbeS for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CDD1A19E6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-132-73.adslplus.ch [178.39.132.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAGAnEDI026931; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:49:14 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:49:13 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEEHJCOAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <54679341.8000008@cs.tcd.ie>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/w2Gw8EhJh1dgq6kObJVDe5yN-88
Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:49:33 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: samedi, 15. novembre 2014 18:54
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch; John C Klensin
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/11/14 16:20, Richard Hill wrote:
> > Let's agree to disagree, because, from my point of view, the IETF is not
> > focussing on all the relevant issues.
> 
> Right, my reading of the list traffic is that I reckon that you
> and others who have what I think is your point of view, by which
> I mean the folks who'd like the draft to do "more" and be more
> legalistic and who aren't (yet!) involved with the technical work
> of the IETF.... just do not share the IETF's point of view,

The NTIA explicitly requested inputs from the "global multistakeholder community", which is broader than the people who are involved with the technical work of the IETF.

Using the IETF process to solict those broad inputs for the protocol parameter part of the IANA function struck me as very sensible, because the IETF process is inherently open to all participants.

However, I now perceive that the intent is that decisions should be made on the basis of the positions and preferences expresed by "those who are involved with the technical work of the IETF", and that the "IETF's point of view"  regarding the transition of the protocol parameters will be the point of view of that narrow subset of the "global multistakeholder community".

If I had understood at the beginning that that was the intent, I probably would not have wasted everybody's time by bringing a different point of view, based on different knowledge and experience, to this discussion.

I apologize for my misundertanding and for any inconvenience that it may have caused.

> for
> example that we'd likely prefer to just drop the term IANA and
> pick another way to handle protocol parameters if using that
> term required sorting out a load of problematic legalities.
> 
> S.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email