Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Bob Hinden <> Tue, 09 July 2019 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03CD12004F; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQx6pmD6bw8I; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CB4120024; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n4so201114wrs.3; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=tvuIAEemDCJbRQHm4hYRUBKCTIYxBotjoTBoVN2DYQY=; b=RkLO0JTULamMNjVuleUpyMoe702c08FZjJab1NxRcP78P1fOkcR7z5koC043VSb0pV YfkVN7L+hiMbD9Ehp/TArmoW+Yv4wOYiQG+uLUWWmlcruRLRankNrFtyN8xPICKlpeZd OiIlhNURsU12YX5vFYnskIAId8k9DmtnCxxxFGum6h9o8RwyAPFeROD8tVacuG0ZhA+H rxuviwGRdiEwXSQTv2hwx4iZ9K1DgpMSSoztFOut5RbebpOBLHCIfjOuo6JxCYkgEAKU fW73BlHbUEI3nQKrU8ouPYf/tfSH37q3d5ygPzl2YaV/Ng5WG+SR50G58Yses3WQbcdg KRhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=tvuIAEemDCJbRQHm4hYRUBKCTIYxBotjoTBoVN2DYQY=; b=EPE6/x7PT9Bx8rYL2O6JeMhSXedv4lnRWt060qimHFNYV1NkDaVpxmJFWCcl42EvhB 7IRDkBziInJC5bdmZ8mydl8m3gvFelEJK2OP1Pkn4wploK685HpP3xLkp70xQr3HMaeu isugZHf3zbYAjZfKGO/yDHw1amwg+CROnqqCEbi8wmMVm4ebgmWGwaOHFO4T2SNWRoD6 80h/6Ms/YKiXyucqGuxrewNVp6kar+naHHWFNI6GKUEjQPL9ZULyMFsOlGJulp/tTaNi dDw6/XRxpltNkC7o8oUjFQkEMt9cc2SXtnY1WJIvxXfMVmZNztXIqIPX/5ZudMV56hS9 qj0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgTfYrBkZq6v5BA5wcNlrEzTaAMdSvFKN3SNwB9cMmMCU/vxWY Wz82zG7wFNmjx9PQJDRNM/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6Ahyr33ETRV3bAvrvfTNJxAF1zBGVLHJgNBt3VTJfgiX+2iguVNUVfnOIj2UUtKM5ikAUjQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e705:: with SMTP id c5mr27768477wrm.270.1562704767554; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:3552:cb1b:3610:3126? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:3552:cb1b:3610:3126]) by with ESMTPSA id 18sm36821wmg.43.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2019 13:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C457BC59-CCFE-45B0-BEB7-DA34E600E8A2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:39:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Alissa Cooper <>, IASA 2 WG <>,, IESG <>,, Jon Peterson <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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?= <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:39:32 -0000


> On Jul 9, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Barry Leiba <> wrote:
> I have added my suggested text, below, to my ballot and moved the
> whole thing from the DISCUSS section to the COMMENT section.  I've
> also changed my ballot to "yes", reflecting the importance I see in
> having this document approved.
> I'd still like to see the clarification I propose made, but I'm OK
> with accepting the judgment of Bob and Alissa, and we now have
> something on record to point to if there should actually be any
> confusion about applying the IAB-vacancy exception before the whole
> process is revised again.
> I'll repeat that I appreciate the work in making the updates here, and
> the discussion that finally led to my understanding the issue that I
> had found unclear.

Thanks.  I have gone through your other comments on the IASA 2 changes, and have adopted a number of them in a local draft I am working on.


> Barry
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:24 AM Barry Leiba <> wrote:
>>> The exception in the document seems consistent with the following hypothetical situation:
>>> The nomcom for year 2035-2036 has been seated. Alice has been on the
>>> IAB for one year. She is also a nominee for an AD position in the Foo
>>> area. There are also six open positions on the IAB.
>>> The nomcom does its deliberations and selects Alice to be the next Foo
>>> AD. They also select six people to serve on the IAB. They send the IESG
>>> slate to the IAB for confirmation and the IAB, with Alice recused,
>>> confirms the slate. Alice resigns from her position on the IAB. The IAB
>>> chair informs the nomcom of the mid-term vacancy created by Alice
>>> resigning. The nomcom selects a seventh candidate to serve on the IAB
>>> (since they have a pool of nominees and filling the vacancy is a
>>> responsibility of the 2035-2036 nomcom) and sends the IAB slate to the
>>> ISOC BoT for confirmation. The announcements of the confirmed slates
>>> and of Alice’s resignation from the IAB then happen simultaneously.
>>> I think this is different from the 2013 situation because all of the
>>> events are taking place during the established nomcom timeline for
>>> getting people seated by the first IETF meeting of the year, so the IAB
>>> candidate pool for 2036 is still “active,” so to speak.
>> OK... then you're saying that in the case that the NomCom has not yet
>> announce the IAB slate, the exception says that they can fill an extra
>> IAB position without advertising that to the community, because
>> there's already a bunch of people who put their names in for IAB
>> positions and there's no reason to think that knowing that there's one
>> more open position will matter.
>> I get that, and, understanding it, I do agree that that was the intent
>> of that text.
>> May I suggest, then, the following edit to make it clear?:
>> OLD
>>   However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
>>   candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>>   IAB.
>> NEW
>>   However, an exception is permitted in the case where the
>>   candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>>   IAB.  Because there is already a pool of candidates for a set of IAB
>>   positions, the NomCom does not a need to inform the community
>>   explicitly that one more position is becoming available, so par of the
>>   process can overlap.
>> END
>> Tweak as necessary, but does that work?  Alissa, Bob, others, what do you think?
>> Barry