Re: [Gendispatch] First comments on draft-rsalz-2028bis-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rich, thanks, just one response:

>    >  See [NOMCOM] for a detailed description of the Nomcom procedures. Other matters concerning its organization and operation, are described in the IESG charter [IESG]
> 
>     Again, please refer to the BCPs.
> 
> BCP10 for NOMCOM, but which one were you thinking of for the IESG?  BCP92 isn't appropriate.

You're right. I'm a bit surprised that RFC3710 is Informational, but it is. (It's also updated by three different BCP's, which is a bit odd, but there it is.)

Regards
   Brian

On 08-Sep-21 05:22, Salz, Rich wrote:
>     > This document describes the individuals and organizations involved in the IETF standards process as described in [IETFPROCS]. 
> 
>     This reference should be to BCP9, not to RFC2026 which has been significantly amended. In general, citing BCP numbers is much more future-proof.
> 
> That's an EXCELLENT point.  The target for IETFPROCS is now BCP9. So multiple changes happened in the RFC->BCP changes, and I won't call all of them out.
> 
>     > It includes brief descriptions of the entities involved, and the role they place in the standards process.
> 
>     Nit: s/place/play/
> 
> Done.
> 
>     > It also addresses the intellectual property rights and copyright issues associated with the standards process.
> 
>     No, that's been removed to two separate documents, BCP78 and BCP79.
> 
> I removed the sentence.
> 
>     >  3.1. The Document Editor or Author
>     ...
>     > When a Document Editor is a Chair of the same working group, a co-chair should manage the process around the document. If a co-chair is not available, the process must be monitored carefully to ensure that the resulting documents accurately reflect the consensus of the Working Group and that all processes are followed. This can be the collective obligation of all parties involved in the document.
> 
>     I completely agree with this, but it belongs in RFC2418bis, not here.
> 
> I disagree, and am not making this change because I think the "this can be" sentence describes the individuals in the same way the other sentences about individuals do.  Of course, if/when  adopted, the consensus may argue against me.  So keep this mail :)
>     >  3.4. The Request for Comments Editor
> 
>     This section should probably just be TBD until the RFC Editor model work is concluded.
> 
> I expect it will be updated once that group is done, yes :)  If nothing else it serves as a placeholder and shows how much text to allow for the section (just kidding, sort of).
> 
>     >  See [NOMCOM] for a detailed description of the Nomcom procedures. Other matters concerning its organization and operation, are described in the IESG charter [IESG]
> 
>     Again, please refer to the BCPs.
> 
> BCP10 for NOMCOM, but which one were you thinking of for the IESG?  BCP92 isn't appropriate.
> 
>>    The IETF's relationship with IANA is defined by formal agreements including [RFC2860]. 
> 
> Added that sentence and ref, thanks.
> 
>     >  4.6. IETF Secretariat 
> 
>     For clarity, I suggest moving this to just after the section describing the LLC.
> 
> Done.
> 
>     True, but 'LLCLEGAL' is a very misleading handle for RFC8712. See next comment:
> 
> Changed it ISOCIETF
> 
>     >  4.10. Internet Society (ISOC)
>     > 
>     > ISOC plays a small but important role in the standards process. It appoints the NomCom Chair, confirms IAB candidates, and acts as the last resort in appeals process
> 
>     In my view, this sentences belittles the relationship.  I would start by reinstating some text from RFC2028, boosted by a reference to RFC8712 which goes into more detail: 
> 
>     Internet standardization is an organized activity of the ISOC, with
>     the Board of Trustees being responsible for ratifying the procedures
>     and rules of the Internet standards process [RFC8712].
> 
> I added this and s/small but important/an important/
> 
>