Re: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

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

Thanks also for these changes! This will be incorporated into -06 shortly.

In Section 5, on ISOC taking IAB advice: not sure they have anything formal, you may want to ask them if this is important to you (I don’t think it must be resolved for the purpose of updating this document).

In Section 6, IETF is in charge of changing IETF documents.

In Section 7, not sure what the question is... The IETF is solely responsible for IETF working groups - ISOC plays no role in that.


Jason

On 8/22/19, 9:40 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    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.