Re: [Iasa20] [EXTERNAL] Re: Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

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

Thanks, Barry - will fix that.

On 8/22/19, 6:02 PM, "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Thanks, Jason; that looks good (there's a typo in your addition in
    Section 2: "and continued to be" should be "and continues to be").
    
    Barry
    
    On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:45 PM Livingood, Jason
    <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >
    > I seem to have missed this for the -06 update so posting a -07 in a second to address these changes.
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Jason
    >
    > On 8/8/19, 12:50 AM, "Barry Leiba via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >
    >     Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
    >     draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: Yes
    >
    >     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:
    >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >     I find the wording in Section 2 to be a bit odd: it sounds like it’s saying
    >     that things have always been the case before, but are perhaps so no longer.
    >     Can we re-word it a little to make it clear that these aspects have not
    >     changed, though other details of the relationship have?  Maybe something like
    >     this (adjust as you see appropriate):
    >     ”ISOC and the IETF have historically been and remain philosophically aligned.
    >      ISOC's connection with the IETF community has always played an important role
    >      in its policy work.  ISOC has always been an advocate for multistakeholder
    >      processes, which include the technical community.  These have not changed, and
    >      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.”
    >
    >     Where Section 4 cites RFC 7437, it should cite 7437bis.
    >
    >     While I always find British spellings delightful, ISOC’s own web site uses
    >     “program” (see, for example,
    >     https://www.internetsociety.org/fellowship/ietf-policy-program/).  We should be
    >     consistent with that.
    >
    >     The first sentence of Section 7 leads me to expect the paragraph to continue
    >     talking about funding from ISOC, but it has nothing further to do with that.  I
    >     suggest a paragraph break after the first sentence, and removing ”in
    >     particular” from the second.
    >
    >        Note that it is possible
    >        that some of those services are provided by ISOC or involve ISOC
    >        staff.
    >
    >     I would say “may be provided”.  Does that not feel better?
    >
    >
    >