Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-04-09 18:03, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:


On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Magnus,

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:24 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having not followed this at all I do see some question marks in regards to the
IRTF that I would like to have clarification on thus the Discuss position.

Why isn't IRTF disucssed in this section, or having its own section of similar
nature?

4.6.  Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the IETF Leadership

   The IETF LLC Board is directly accountable to the IETF community for
   the performance of the IASA 2.0.  However, the nature of the Board's
   work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers
   of the administrative support services.  The Board and the IETF
   Executive Director should not consider their work successful unless
   the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support
   that the IETF is receiving.


The administrative support for the IRTF has historically been bundled into either the support of the IAB or to the meeting support (when the RGs are meeting at the IETF meeting).   The IRTF chair, as a member of the IAB, would be able to express concerns she or he had with the administrative support services.

This doesn't mean that the LLC Board couldn't seek out the input of the IRTF chair for direct discussion of concerns; this section describes what the board must do, but doesn't limit them to only that.

Can someone please explain why the IETF LLC role for IRTF are almost not at all
described? For example is IRTF not a significant internal customer?

Also, what is the relation between the IRTF and IETF community? As the IETF
community does not appear to have a definition, it is not possible to determine
if IRTF is counted as part of the IETF community or not. In my thinking the
IETF and IRTF communities are not the same set, and it is not obvious that IETF
community is the super set.


I think we use IETF in two ways.  This first encompasses the set of working groups and structures that support the standards process,  and the second is used more broadly, to include the IAB, IRTF, Hackathon, RFC series and other parts of the Internet technical community which are gathered here.  I think when we say "IETF community", we generally mean the second, because we have no better term.  We could change the title to say something like "Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the other Leadership groups", but I am not personally sure that is an improvement.


I understand that defining IETF community is potentially tricky and also not necessarily long term stable for things at the edge of that definition. I also don't think helps, as then you suddenly excluded the IRTF from the IETF community. I perceive the intention here is to count the IRTF as part of that second larger IETF community. Thus, it should be clear that they are included.



I think some clarification on the IRTFs relation are needed in this document.


I don't really want to open RFC 4440 or BCP 8 for this, so I would be interested to know what you think the minimum clarification here would be.  Would adding the IRTF as an additional internal customer be sufficient?

Yes, here in 4.6 we tried to talk about "major" internal customers with the understanding that there are other not-as-major... I'd also be interested in what a minimal clarification here that would be important to make in this document. best, joe

I think if one include the IRTF as  major internal customers, I think that helps quite a lot to ensure that IRTF is included in the IETF community context.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------