Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

I seem to have missed this for the -06 update so posting a -07 in a second to address these changes. 

Thanks!
Jason

On 8/8/19, 12:50 AM, "Barry Leiba via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: Yes
    
    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:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I find the wording in Section 2 to be a bit odd: it sounds like it’s saying
    that things have always been the case before, but are perhaps so no longer. 
    Can we re-word it a little to make it clear that these aspects have not
    changed, though other details of the relationship have?  Maybe something like
    this (adjust as you see appropriate):
    
”ISOC and the IETF have historically been and remain philosophically aligned.
     ISOC's connection with the IETF community has always played an important role
     in its policy work.  ISOC has always been an advocate for multistakeholder
     processes, which include the technical community.  These have not changed, and
     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.”
    
    Where Section 4 cites RFC 7437, it should cite 7437bis.
    
    While I always find British spellings delightful, ISOC’s own web site uses
    “program” (see, for example,
    https://www.internetsociety.org/fellowship/ietf-policy-program/).  We should be
    consistent with that.
    
    The first sentence of Section 7 leads me to expect the paragraph to continue
    talking about funding from ISOC, but it has nothing further to do with that.  I
    suggest a paragraph break after the first sentence, and removing ”in
    particular” from the second.
    
       Note that it is possible
       that some of those services are provided by ISOC or involve ISOC
       staff.
    
    I would say “may be provided”.  Does that not feel better?