[Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 August 2019 13:40 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13D712006B; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, jon.peterson@neustar.biz, iasa20@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <156648122791.14805.9428385529523186162.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:40:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/9YIVfC_TIOOTin73MNhxrgwHT-Y>
Subject: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called IASA 2.0 project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:40:28 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: No Objection 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-rfc2031bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1 The growth of the Internet over several decades also led to the growth of the IETF. More and more people, organizations, and companies rely on Internet Standards. Non-technical issues, such as I suppose we can ignore the elephant in the room that the Internet runs on Proposed Standards. Section 2 community. Open standards are an explicit part of one of the focus areas in ISOC's mission: Advancing the development and application of Internet infrastructure, technologies, and open standards. Perhaps a reference to https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/ is in order? Section 3 The IETF remains responsible for the development and quality of the Internet Standards. Apart from the roles described below, the IETF and ISOC acknowledge that ISOC has no influence whatsoever on the technical content of Internet Standards. As for Roman, this struck me as perhaps overly strong, and perhaps intended to refer to "organizational" influence or influence "as an institution", though perhaps the later text about involvement of ISOC employees "as individual contributors rather than on institutional grounds" suffices. Section 5 The charter of the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) [RFC2850] states that "the IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical, architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies". This Is there anything on the ISOC side that documents how they accept advice from the IAB or reach out to the IAB for such advice? Section 6 trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property rights. As part of the IETF Trust arrangement, IETF standards documents can be freely downloaded, copied, and distributed without financial or other distribution restrictions, though all rights to change these documents lie with the IETF. The IETF Trust also provides legal Is that truly "all rights" or only as it applies to documents published under the RFC 5378 terms (as opposed to, say, the "pre5378Trust200902" ipr attribute in the XML vocabulary)? Section 7 Under the new IASA 2.0 structure, the IETF is solely responsible for its administration, including the IETF Trust, IAB, IESG, IETF working groups, and other IETF processes. A further exploration of this can I'm not sure whether there's a nit here or not, but it kind of reads like this is saying that (e.g.) "IETF working groups" are part of the IETF's "administration", which requires a certain mindset to seem true. Section 13 I agree with the secdir reviewer that having a link to the LLC operational agreement would be helpful.
- [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dra… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dra… Benjamin Kaduk