Re: [Iasa20] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-09: (with COMMENT)

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

Thank you for your review! Responses inline with github issues where I see
clear text changes needed:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:50 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Section 1
>
> s/Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/IETF Administrative
> Oversight Committee (IAOC)/
>
>
Thanks, we will make this change. (Noted by Ben K. as well)


> * Section 3
>
> "maximum unilateral flexibility for the IETF LLC"
>
> What does unilateral mean here? As opposed to what?
>
>
As oppose to having to have ISOC sign contracts, etc. This is the crux of
the entire IASA2 effort. Let me know if I misunderstand you.


> * Section 4.1
>
> I would have thought IASA 2.0 would be defined using the definition
> currently
> used for "IASA" and IASA would be defined as the obsoleted version of this
> defined in RFC4071.
>
>
Barry raised this as well and my response was to not do anything. I may be
worth further discussion. The essential issue here is that under the
previous regime "IASA" referred to both the generic idea of an
administrative support function and the actual instantiation of it. Now,
since we have a new regime, we've moved to "IASA" being the generic term
for the IETF administrative support function and "IASA 2.0" being this
version of it. If there is text here that could make this less confusing,
we would be receptive.


> * Section 4.6
>
> Since this talks about leadership a reference to IRSG may be more
> appropriate
> than the IRTF as a whole?
>
>
We had a discussion on another thread that concluded with IRTF being the
preferred term here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/aVqgWjzTCIk2purF71MTYz0MH8g


> * Section 6.5
>
> It is not clear from this text if someone serves as a Board appointed
> director
> for a term, whether they are eligible for two more terms using other
> methods or
> only one more. I think this will be worth clarifying.
>
>
(as noted on a different email on this thread, we'll make the clarifying
change you proposed:
https://github.com/IASA2/draft-ietf-iasa2-struct/issues/103 )


> * Section 7.7
>
> "The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, and IRTF"
>
> Not sure why the RFC Editor is left out here. Suggest changing to
>
> "The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, IRTF and the RFC Editor"
>

Ben K. also pointed out how this paragraph has RFC Editor in the second
list but not in the first, as you are proposing. I'd like to hear from the
working group as to what people feel here... is it ok to just add the RFC
Editor to the first or is a parenthetical like I proposed in response to
Ben [1] more of a better fit?

[1]:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/77H7z8s50cgsCH_KubEHkg6FjBI


-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [e-mail], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871