Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Hi Terry,
Thank you for your reply.
From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:49:49 +1000
| Speaking for myself
I also speaking for myself.
Then, I just would like to say necessity of policy process. Not to
intend to create perfect (:-) policy, but we should have our policy
process to revise it as necessary.
| > Actually, recently, there are only a few policy proposal for IPv4 in
| > APNIC maybe because people start to shift to IPv6. I think no need to
| > close IPv4 policy discussion since if no demand for IPv4 policy charge,
| > we'll have less IPv4 policy proposal.
| >
|
| I'd rather see the WG put into a sleep mode until a policy proposal that meets some ipv6 or desperate need ipv4 criteria is surfaced. I'm sure the secretariat and the slumbering co-chairs can alert this list to such an event, I'm not a fan of the EC being made to hold that baton as well. So certainly keep the list alive, but let us only concern ourselves with moving forward.
So, this might be one option.
| I do note, reflecting on my years on this list, that in recent times I see traffic only when policy deadlines are near. That I think speaks loudly to the tone of the proposal.
I personally think this is almost same as other many parties:-)
| > | Randy's proposal is specifically related to "IP address policy".
| >
| > In the APNIC policy-sig not only the IP address policy, but also whois
| > DB attribute issue, reverse DNS lame delegation issue, etc. has
| > discussed. I think prop-103 includes to stop these proposals since
| > these were discussed under the current PDP.
| >
|
| I believe that those later items are discussed in the policy sig in error. There was once a DB-SIG, a DNS-SIG, and a number of workgroups (fees, rms, voting, etc etc. I do like the idea that a specific problem has a short-lived, nicely chartered forum to address the concern and present a proposal that affects policy.
Well, I did not remember exact timing, but at some point in the past,
sig chairs decided that all policy proposal moved to policy sig. I'm
not sure this is my misconception or not now.
| > Here, I would like to say about discussion organized by APNIC EC
| > described in prop-103. In the IETF, anyone can write and submit
| > internet draft, not filtered by somebody, I believe.
| >
|
| To clarify in the general sense (wearing an IETF Work group chair hat), anyone may write a _individual_ draft, if that draft is presented at an ietf Work Group (WG) meeting depends on the charter of the WG and the chair's (and sometimes area director) interpretation of that charter. A individual draft may then be accepted as a WG item by consensus from the workgroup set against its stated milestones. There are other ways to have individual drafts turned into RFCs which don't go via a work group, but those paths still have a review process.
|
| You can read more, and in much better wording, on this here: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
|
| and
|
| http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026 (and the documents that update it).
Thank you wg chair for your clarification! Yes, I've used these procedure
and will use in near future:-)
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki