Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Just on this point.
>
> On 11/4/14, 7:39 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> Related to this, I find the phrase "IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement that ..." weird. Does this mean IAOC has to do this? or that IETF wishes that they try to get that? or what? I have no idea, but one thing I am sure about is that this draft is the wrong place and wrong time to change the relationship between IETF and IAOC. This should be phrased such that it is clear it is within in the normal existing relationship of the IETF and IAOC.
>>
>>
> We are not changing the relationship in the document.  The point is that
> the IAOC is the arm of our organization that makes these sorts of
> arrangements.  In this case matters are complicated by the fact that the
> responsibility is shared, as per RFC 6220, with the IAB (amongst
> others), and we are producing a response document that identifies needs
> that should be addressed.  We could simply say that "A supplemental
> agreement should be concluded that says," and leave as an inference that
> it is in fact the IAOC, but a normal human being might not quite follow
> that.
>
>

Seems to me that a "normal human being" might not understand that IAOC 
is an "the arm of our organization that makes these sorts of arrangements."

It might be clearer to say something like "Acting through the IAOC, 
IETF's contracting body, A supplemental agreement should be concluded 
that says,"

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra