Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> (on Barry's smaller nits...)

And they are small points, yes; thanks for chatting about them.

>> — Section 4.1 —
>> Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?
>
> I believe so... that is IASA 1.0 was the first instantiation of IASA, IASA 2.0 is the second?
> I think we tried to side-step this by talking about IASA as the generic support structure
> and IASA 2.0 as the new version (and I haven't seen anyone explicitly use IASA 1.0 so
> maybe that's causing confusion?).

I certainly know that the original IASA is different from IASA 2.0.
But the document gives a definition of the term "IASA" that seems to
say that "IASA" means "the IASA we have now, with these new
processes".  And that seems to me to be identical with "IASA 2.0".
Again, it's a small point, and it doesn't matter that much.  I just
wonder whether it's worth having both terms separately and distinctly
defined.

Of course, I also wonder whether we've already put more thought into
this question than it's worth.

>> — Section 6.9 —
>> I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote on an
>> “act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That seems
>> like it could end up being problematic.
>
> Well, this assumes a 5-member board, but the board can grow to be 6 or 7 (4 and 5 votes
> respectively for 2/3) if it decides to appoint up to two "LLC-appointed" members (Section
> 6.2). This was by design.

I understand it's by design, and I don't know what the sense is about
whether the board will typically run with 5 members or not.  I'm just
highlighting that if it does run with 5 members, needing 4 out of 5 to
get anything done is pushing it a bit.

But we can move on from that: the working group clearly did think
about it, and I deliberately did not make this a DISCUSS point.

>> — Section 6.10 —
>> What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the
>> normal English meaning of the idiom in here
>
> Hmmm, I don't find this confusing but a term like "as needed" may be more clear?
> I don't think we intend to limit the ability of the board to adjourn official business
> until they can get a quorum of folks in the room.

Ah, I see what you're getting at, then.  So I would just remove the
phrase altogether; what remains says exactly what you mean:

NEW
   If a quorum is not present at any
   meeting of the Board, the Directors present may adjourn the meeting
   without notice, other than announcement at the
   meeting, until a quorum is present.
END

Barry