This is the third forwarded message. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [Ianaplan] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC > Date: 14 Dec 2014 03:56:58 EST > To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx, iesg@xxxxxxxx > Reply-To: rhill@xxxxxxxxx > > Why don't my messages get posted in the IETF list archive? > > I see JFC's reply to my message, but not my message. > > Is there some blocking or filtering going on that prevents my messages from > being posted? > > Best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: jeudi, 11. décembre 2014 12:39 >> To: Jari Arkko >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: [Ianaplan] Last Call: >> <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the >> Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol >> parameters registries) to Informational RFC >> >> >> Dear Jari, >> >> Thank you for this. I do understand the consensus call is a >> judgement call. But, as I understand RFC 7282, a justification >> should be provided for the judgement call. And that is what I am >> requesting. >> >> Regarding the "sheperd writeup", I have requested some changes, see: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01415.html >> >> Regarding the IESG, that body requested comments, and that is why >> I submitted my comments to the IETF list. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: mercredi, 10. décembre 2014 11:28 >>> To: rhill@xxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Last Call: >>> <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the >>> Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol >>> parameters registries) to Informational RFC >>> >>> >>> Richard, >>> >>>> On 27 November, I requested that the co-chairs provide a >>> justification for >>>> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01402.html >>>> >>>> The requested justification has not yet been provided. >>> >>> Calling the consensus is a judgment call. For what it is worth, I >>> have been >>> quite satisfied with the chairs and the document shepherd reading the >>> opinions of the group. Their thoughts have been discussed in the thread >>> “draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step”, see the thread >>> beginning at >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01401.html >>> >>> See in particular this e-mail: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01406.html >>> >>> as well as the shepherd writeup: >>> >>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/ > shepherdwriteup/ > > Also, for information, the IESG has not yet considered this draft. But they > will. Right now it's in IETF last call, the outcome of which will first be > evaluated by the responsible AD, in this case me. And then by the IESG > as a whole. At that point the IESG will determine if there have been any > process or other issues that need consideration or action. > > Jari > >