Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 04 February 2020 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89E112012A for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:29:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UeK3r-sj8qAW for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABBA120074 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0148TN6F013214 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:29:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1580804975; x=1580891375;; bh=lzgtra8bj/NFEY6PTZYAmUFe5xNQEWeofqxsmGKArbk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=OR3kMTN51MDcpAzEBJXMypRNuZ/DIY8IohesZWVCio66b8c2RjJ3Gs6DtIk0NklKA Tu0tlEj08h5Qm9Gdmw/mG3/E6Ve1vpRt0iXoeVMIYXePUkZod1M3ltsxwrE9MfbIUD 88l+tcy8K7tx9yQ6ZxDxbC98tPWksWb8TQ8lLtIc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:28:59 -0800
To: Alvaro Retana <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxzMQNK2pCaOYyf7gviOz4Xy54_U9qSnv2S_zbc-E49Vg@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:29:42 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
At 06:54 AM 09-01-2020, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>(2) Liaison managers (to other organizations) represent the interests
>of the IETF, should they be subject to a similar COI policy?  Maybe it
>is not appropriate to include them in this specific policy, but I
>didn't find anything in rfc4052 related to this point.

I'll comment on (2).  The communication from an IETF Liaison Manager 
is expected to "represent the IETF".  The designated authority is 
within the IETF.  Would it be okay if the IAB were to set a policy or 
would it be up to the IESG to do that?

S. Moonesamy