Richard,
(I am copying once again your e-mail at the end, in case
it didn’t otherwise make it to the list archives.)
First, I wanted to say that I agree with Andrew said.
Secondly, I wanted to assure you that your opinion
and comments are on record, have been noted and
thought about, even in those cases where we did not
say anything specific about them. Your specific
issue in this case was brought up in the IESG
discussion, for instance. Thanks for the feedback.
The summary that I sent (or any other similar
messages) should not be taken as a detailed list
of everything that went on. They are high-level
summaries, and written in my words, characterising
the situation as I see it. They are beneficial as
brief explanations, but the real record is the detailed
discussions, e.g, on the list.
But I can change my summary to read:
"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). Richard
was requesting a justification (beyond information
already available) for why the conclusion was what
it was, and deferring the IESG decision."
For what it is worth, I think there was certainly
enough information in the thread labeled
"draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step”,
the shepherd writeup, and of course as well in the
overall process that the working group went through.
Jari
---
Original message from Richard:
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.
Since you say "further justification", it seems that I missed something,
because I don't recall seeing the justification from the co-chairs for the
rough consensus call. Perhaps you could point me to it?
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.
I don't recall seeing any statement from any IESG member to the effect that
he or she had considered my request not to proceed to approve the draft
until the co-chairs had provided a justification for the rough consensus
call. Perhaps I missed some relevant statements explaining why my request
was considered but rejected.
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,
See above.
And please note that the changes I requested to the sheperd write-up with
respect to my statements have not been made (see below), so that write-up
does not correctly reflect what I said during the disussions.
Jari
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/
shepherdwriteup/
Please add that I requested that changes be made to that
writeup so as to
reflect correctly my statements.
SNIP
• 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.
SNIP
• 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.
_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail