Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:24 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: Discuss
>>
>> 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-rfc4071bis/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Having not followed this at all I do see some question marks in regards
>> to the
>> IRTF that I would like to have clarification on thus the Discuss position.
>>
>> Why isn't IRTF disucssed in this section, or having its own section of
>> similar
>> nature?
>>
>> 4.6.  Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the IETF Leadership
>>
>>    The IETF LLC Board is directly accountable to the IETF community for
>>    the performance of the IASA 2.0.  However, the nature of the Board's
>>    work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers
>>    of the administrative support services.  The Board and the IETF
>>    Executive Director should not consider their work successful unless
>>    the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support
>>    that the IETF is receiving.
>>
>>
> The administrative support for the IRTF has historically been bundled into
> either the support of the IAB or to the meeting support (when the RGs are
> meeting at the IETF meeting).   The IRTF chair, as a member of the IAB,
> would be able to express concerns she or he had with the administrative
> support services.
>
> This doesn't mean that the LLC Board couldn't seek out the input of the
> IRTF chair for direct discussion of concerns; this section describes what
> the board must do, but doesn't limit them to only that.
>
>
>> Can someone please explain why the IETF LLC role for IRTF are almost not
>> at all
>> described? For example is IRTF not a significant internal customer?
>>
>> Also, what is the relation between the IRTF and IETF community? As the
>> IETF
>> community does not appear to have a definition, it is not possible to
>> determine
>> if IRTF is counted as part of the IETF community or not. In my thinking
>> the
>> IETF and IRTF communities are not the same set, and it is not obvious
>> that IETF
>> community is the super set.
>>
>>
> I think we use IETF in two ways.  This first encompasses the set of
> working groups and structures that support the standards process,  and the
> second is used more broadly, to include the IAB, IRTF, Hackathon, RFC
> series and other parts of the Internet technical community which are
> gathered here.  I think when we say "IETF community", we generally mean the
> second, because we have no better term.  We could change the title to say
> something like "Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the other Leadership
> groups", but I am not personally sure that is an improvement.
>
>
>> I think some clarification on the IRTFs relation are needed in this
>> document.
>>
>>
> I don't really want to open RFC 4440 or BCP 8 for this, so I would be
> interested to know what you think the minimum clarification here would be.
> Would adding the IRTF as an additional internal customer be sufficient?
>

Yes, here in 4.6 we tried to talk about "major" internal customers with the
understanding that there are other not-as-major... I'd also be interested
in what a minimal clarification here that would be important to make in
this document. best, joe