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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:24 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?

While a lot of text in this document is new, it was influenced initially by RFC 4071. RFC 4071 mentions the IRTF once. Some clarification in 4071bis seems fine, but just wanted to point that out.

Alissa

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 some clarification on the IRTFs relation are needed in this document.
> 
> 
> 
>