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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 22 August 2019 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E898C1209D8; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZxsfNKp8D6Y; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com (mail-io1-f53.google.com [209.85.166.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F5B12001E; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id b10so6286504ioj.2; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XAsUHPFRXW3V3kH7XENX5ODq6K+0rUNjYk+grQrs4HA=; b=UKEthiLQGrUbezR8aCtM32EAKOMm4Vsb5YoMRTLv267SrHJRR7h/XoFmOn1k2qkasQ N22T7DNPUMM7/pS1uPEBDBlEH+O+J9kdNkSF48cwBhL9dl//GKh4fY2Wkp8bvhG82kOF L7WGfjyvR3aiWpPQFjUbzpDg8VnXsoSGbRSwHWRTnYhOQ1G0GwYEFZdVsgTX0J5EnIi4 aUqTO34Toi9CuKniUmqDuPcRqRDFBL2seuFIyq8vojTbuqehzuVcnoV2MEim2MTNmz8f KSV20xvwL+tgOMjLqqRUQg+RhM+jrl1PTaULzjg0ujHmdnk4NS2nLJCkPDLtwSma2dw5 jgDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWbHywBVpMrFlCCkGDBEWhqfBbOaDpQPp38sIgOoe+mLZcG+29u n9TrbWBzB32QRL9V+ZQjE4r8GNgNAIbHZo2JDNs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwY/Mx+70qfkSCcKtwIRxllhmwofVZsqI6qlcA4MFg1jdnqtWLgv4fJP+Ph757loc4xZ95u16Ss+wpXUUEwZOg=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:77d0:: with SMTP id g199mr1803971jac.140.1566511360245; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156523980964.8361.17146518946075725241.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <35E443E6-E9FF-413B-AAC2-8444A04ED757@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <35E443E6-E9FF-413B-AAC2-8444A04ED757@cable.comcast.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:02:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJK94Jm0rw_u=wyJKg0X7kPq3a2Aq9yupmt-Qgz_yL2aBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org>, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, "iasa2-chairs@ietf.org" <iasa2-chairs@ietf.org>, "iasa20@ietf.org" <iasa20@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/Ft_B6lE0QdxhmnxGucJVRWq0n4g>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
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?= <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 22:02:43 -0000

Thanks, Jason; that looks good (there's a typo in your addition in
Section 2: "and continued to be" should be "and continues to be").

Barry

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:45 PM Livingood, Jason
<Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>; wrote:
>
> 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" <noreply@ietf.org>; 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?
>
>
>