Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 08 July 2019 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163AC120058; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.704
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gbam0vh8H-Mm; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 114C312014B; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r1so8148305pfq.12; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hyGkc9jQvAIIepLnmu6tnjCcbueT5N0Y803pGvyJM6U=; b=syq6/QXY3/scHarM1xPYFaqGV0U2u1ZsfN2dOHu8WiCBWe+NIaT7ENviejT8qfUCbj ffeolJuO4q53gVIjd5v0jkAeAj11aLz/a7l3DkyUutr8dUlhVbgtb8EofXbB/p1UHkjf uXl2MbjLaU8STOhQ0qRYD0VQ2/dVHx0Np7TIhOVrhj29/V95urvmsK9v2HKfv5A4CxrD 7G6oVVRF43OMx9c+Oo89pEDLFXyyblu35bpacQ1NIvPnkubeR4Zm9a+m9TNBX4dQ89eg QZB7G9K7HFVpuAeuNSyvoRhZUHSbBNp6JMQhK7STGWjfSP5GFJ9b4pEGe4KQ38BZIK/K LJGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hyGkc9jQvAIIepLnmu6tnjCcbueT5N0Y803pGvyJM6U=; b=MAqy3L4MzO+Sr5R2KxyNWipj9tJ/6Fuoh7YDC1sWayvsba/zcUcVyLW5xlSmBCoRN7 2iYXcoh4fS8HdxCIb4zjGPLQ/JtU2YJMGruMvBWgCBthZ+xtGCiYimCe8X/xSOTVujjQ qDbH4cdYnn0G2A7SQl2b51Hfug+7mFI0dyrcbrA9fmdeBOxWg2oKSkiqeBNBA/vsxTYK TZJ03hvlcvKjNLPShN4Rgr6RHgNZxf7NsrkXbGWYA5wf35R6nsK9c+43xRtGHpd88uGO bWqWaXwqnZu+nmQNEkwU54EdNRe41Jrx1JToorPt3elhts33qFo4eJdOHUWNW1lbeR3s W+/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXkUImmGt5fXUqNqOniUG4qO2P0i8nKeF957is50DkMhWPGjHP7 T/Jdn1SbOCS5sYnJaUHicDA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwSU7o5jr7QyX94m3HUWm2zfcpegqobPsJTOlr+GRFmdzK0/XenC800/qGIsT6wx7GtIfUKfA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bb8a:: with SMTP id v10mr28636974pjr.78.1562619381515; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 13:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s67sm436620pjb.8.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jul 2019 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: Barry Leiba <>, Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IASA 2 WG <>,, IESG <>,, Jon Peterson <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 08:56:15 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?iso-8859-1?q?Discussions_relating_to_reorganising_the_IETF_administrative_structures_in_the_so_called_=93IASA_2=2E0=94_project=2E?= <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 20:56:33 -0000

On 09-Jul-19 03:24, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The exception in the document seems consistent with the following hypothetical situation:
>> The nomcom for year 2035-2036 has been seated. Alice has been on the
>> IAB for one year. She is also a nominee for an AD position in the Foo
>> area. There are also six open positions on the IAB.
>> The nomcom does its deliberations and selects Alice to be the next Foo
>> AD. They also select six people to serve on the IAB. They send the IESG
>> slate to the IAB for confirmation and the IAB, with Alice recused,
>> confirms the slate. Alice resigns from her position on the IAB. The IAB
>> chair informs the nomcom of the mid-term vacancy created by Alice
>> resigning. The nomcom selects a seventh candidate to serve on the IAB
>> (since they have a pool of nominees and filling the vacancy is a
>> responsibility of the 2035-2036 nomcom) and sends the IAB slate to the
>> ISOC BoT for confirmation. The announcements of the confirmed slates
>> and of Alice’s resignation from the IAB then happen simultaneously.
>> I think this is different from the 2013 situation because all of the
>> events are taking place during the established nomcom timeline for
>> getting people seated by the first IETF meeting of the year, so the IAB
>> candidate pool for 2036 is still “active,” so to speak.
> OK... then you're saying that in the case that the NomCom has not yet
> announce the IAB slate, the exception says that they can fill an extra
> IAB position without advertising that to the community, because
> there's already a bunch of people who put their names in for IAB
> positions and there's no reason to think that knowing that there's one
> more open position will matter.
> I get that, and, understanding it, I do agree that that was the intent
> of that text.
> May I suggest, then, the following edit to make it clear?:
>    However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
>    candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>    IAB.
>    However, an exception is permitted in the case where the
>    candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>    IAB.  Because there is already a pool of candidates for a set of IAB
>    positions, the NomCom does not a need to inform the community
>    explicitly that one more position is becoming available, so par of the
>    process can overlap.
> Tweak as necessary, but does that work?  Alissa, Bob, others, what do you think?

FWIW I think I finally understood what was bothering Barry and I think this
tweak does express what the drafters of RFC7437 thought they were saying. So
this would be a confirmed erratum on RFC7437, if that was where we were in
the process. It's above my pay grade to decide whether we should handle it
now or wait for RFC7437bisbis.

John Klensin's subsequent message would be a substantive change of intent,
IMHO. I'm not sure how I feel about it.