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

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 20 August 2019 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CB9120180; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis@ietf.org, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, jon.peterson@neustar.biz, iasa20@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156632798201.457.1362280444323430129.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:06:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/hYDr0om4FOSkFsSDo4_pEVrVhbY>
Subject: [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
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:06:22 -0000

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]