[Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

— Section 6.4 —
Adding to what Mirja notes about a two-year term for the IESG appointee: the
text here clearly assumes it will be the IETF Chair, allows it not to be, but
makes that situation awkward.  Each IESG should be able to change the
appointment if it thinks it appropriate.  In particular, we chose the IETF
chair this time to maintain continuity with the transition, but we might
prefer, once the startup tasks are done, to move to someone else in order to
lighten the load on the IETF Chair position.  I think such delegation is
important.

So for a number of reasons, a one-year term makes more sense, perhaps with text
encouraging reappointment for two or three years, would be better (along with
appropriate changes to term limits in 6.5 to specify years rather than terms). 
Did the working group specifically discuss and reject this?  Or was it just
aligned to the IETF Chair’s term without giving consideration to these points?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

— Section 4.1 —
Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?

— Section 6.9 —
I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote on an
“act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That seems
like it could end up being problematic.

— Section 6.10 —
What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the
normal English meaning of the idiom in here.