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

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 22 August 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 6FDA41209AE; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 GUhDdTeINteB; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB44120C28; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x7ML2D8x047629; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:02:13 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu x7ML2D8x047629
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1566507733; bh=ihWzxRe10ytoIlUH1C/bxbDqyTgVLZqZ9PWPhrkpZ8M=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZYe7u5SiU3rn+zVIGRj/ZkmOGNIMJJnoMbkCvc1h2hMvA56OVC/ma5Z9Iyo7ClCQ8 zRHIS1QBQ83S73hdMM+0Lo9KVPdSUdzj2Hs+Yr1Aph6CXPTCIRgj87pL8CZA2/yr0K i6Dq1Jj4oVA5XnoFLAF+eRgCoKIcL60g6MiSgSIE=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x7ML2BP9021692; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:02:11 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:02:11 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "iasa20@ietf.org" <iasa20@ietf.org>, "iasa2-chairs@ietf.org" <iasa2-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org>, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVV4peFw7kMfSLSkedib42gSdmnKcH3kaA///MI5A=
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:02:10 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B343BFEF@marathon>
References: <156632798201.457.1362280444323430129.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A9349C27-F8FF-4848-ACF2-696E4DA8F8EF@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9349C27-F8FF-4848-ACF2-696E4DA8F8EF@cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/XlhoyLJ00ZSXDfT26rD5fy1AKVQ>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Roman Danyliw's No Objection 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 21:02:19 -0000

Hi Jason!

Thanks for the updates in -06.  They address my comments.

Regards,
Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:07 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>;; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> Cc: iasa20@ietf.org; iasa2-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-iasa2-
> rfc2031bis@ietf.org; Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>;
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks and these changes will be made in the -06 shortly.
> 
> In response to your question on funding support, ISOC has only agreed to
> provide funding of a specific dollar figure through FY2020, after which a joint
> re-assessment will be conducted on future. I'll try to generalize the text. I
> don't think anyone expects that funding to go away in the foreseeable future
> of course.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On 8/20/19, 3:06 PM, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org>;
> wrote:
> 
>     Roman Danyliw 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.  Typo.  s/the the/the/
> 
>     ** Section 3 makes the absolute statement that “the IETF and ISOC
> acknowledge
>     that ISOC has no influence whatsoever on the technical content of the
> Internet
>     standards”.  Section 4 reminds us that “ISOC maintain[ing] liaison
>     relationships … with other … SDOs”.  Stretching a bit, given the reliance of
>     the IETF on these key SDO relationships, the ability to or timeliness in
>     forming/keeping these relationships could conceivably indirectly influence
>     technical standards.  IMO, s/ISOC has no influence/ISOC has no direct
>     influence/.
> 
>     Derived from Hilarie Orman’s SECDIR review:
> 
>     ** Section 7.  Per “Under the terms of the Operating Agreement
> [OpAgreement]
>     between ISOC and the IETF, ISOC has agreed to provide some funding
> support for
>     the IETF (ISOC has historically provided the IETF with significant financial
>     support)”, what is the difference between “some funding” and “significant
>     funding support”?
> 
>     ** References.  Explicitly point to
>     https://www.ietf.org/documents/180/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf for
> [OpAgreement]
> 
>