[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 13 March 2019 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA091311C6; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtoGERhMuDlv; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 765841311D7; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x2DL1QU3011280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:01:26 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis.all@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <378c47cc-93a2-9b96-1574-0b4e41f2dba3@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:01:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mkwKNP3bbvekyqCKR3i3cOPMcqM>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 21:01:38 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at 

Document: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2019-03-13
IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-18
IESG Telechat date: ?


This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should 
be fixed before publication.


Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits:  3

1) NIT:

In the following in section 4.8:

    Any major change to the IASA 2.0 arrangements shall require a similar
    level of community consensus and deliberation and ...

It isn't clear to me what "similar" refers to.

2) NIT:

The following passage from section 6.10:

    Board decisions may be made either by vote communicated in a meeting
    of the Board (including telephonic and video), or via an asynchronous
    written (including electronic) process.  Absentee voting and voting
    by proxy shall not be permitted.

confuses me. Absentee voting isn't permitted, but asynchronous written 
voting is permitted. What is the distinction?

3) NIT:

Regarding the following from section 6.11:

    As a result, an Interim Board was formed on
    a temporary basis until the first full board was constituted.
    o  One ISOC trustee, selected by the ISOC Board of Trustees

This is written in the past tense, so I guess it has already happened. 
But the "individuals" are only identified in the abstract. I would think 
this should identify specific individuals. Perhaps that isn't necessary 
for the ex officio members since they can be resolved to a particular 
individual at any time. But that isn't so for the ISOC trustee.