Re: [Iasa20] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

"Livingood, Jason" <> Thu, 22 August 2019 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB25F120B17 for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-pqDJxx-8bY for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0093D120AF7 for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=20190412; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1566502332; x=2430415932; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FfklhIBR50lZwmnxDYO7MoP9ThDSyfpWlR+PWRTWaYc=; b=uTLivwNQGIJfEVy2ZzQZxIqDl0z53WemTMrSadush9VMD6JLIlh1iQmjzKztto77 gAnApVhsPIC7Lw5QVd653TrcG5MFgW59UESlO3RftKjiHqroWP6u7TKYjde25Xfe KYn+ecgWsIb/0/3GzFKitj0iUpJa2OPfkBc1w09KfOgm2amh59zABoa/6Ij6cPvp DiAcAUwynogs1YVqgiWOksEXYAJJziYEaKOqpXoQDFYRxPa2Io8z4ckuZ9zUg6V0 1tjVj61Yl0nBNAp7oJityyboYFAZoA2Uz833tQFdfTMz/e8tDXlk8te9YM8sqUAj hQrBvLTA9BQ+lFas/7NmuQ==;
X-AuditID: a2962c47-a9fff7000002e144-9a-5d5eedbc5158
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id 9A.5C.57668.CBDEE5D5; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:32:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:32:28 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94]) by ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe36:8a94%15]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.008; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:32:28 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <>
To: Adam Roach <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, Jon Peterson <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVVwWZDs6U+wVaZkaArIXWahMjsacHkp2A
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:32:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1c.0.190812
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrAKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUDRnsu6et3GxBpP/iVns+buI3WL7gdeM Fr13v7NbLJm+kclixp+JzBZnGiwd2DyWLPnJ5LGj4Tmzx6ydT1gCmKMaGG1KMopSE0tcUtNS 84pT7bgUMIBNUmpaflGqa2JRTmVQak5qInZlIJUpqTmZZalF+liN0cdqTkIXU8aXhuiCSzIV OxdNYmlg/CLdxcjJISFgInF03QnmLkYuDiGBI0wSy2YtZoNwWpgk9qyczwrhnGaU+HXtAytI C5uAmcTdhVeYQWwRAWuJ080nwdqZBa4xSuz7+54NJCEsEChx/OtmJoiiIIm5X55A2UYSz2dC DGIRUJX4s3MKO4jNK+AisfHpX7ChQgI+EttndoHN4RTwlXhxdg5YnFFATOL7qTVgc5gFxCVu PZnPBPGDgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/4HNFxXQl1jyYzMrRFxe4siEfyxdjBxAvZoS63fpQ4yxkrhw bQorhK0oMaX7IdQ5ghInZz5hgWgVlzh8ZAfrBEbJWUg2z0KYNAvJpFlIJs1CMmkBI+sqRl5D MyM9Q1MDPRMTPXPDTYzAdLVomo77DsYP52MPMQpwMCrx8Lo+j4sVYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMJb NhEoxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnPduV2yskEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgXG7QZTE PP6tT6wzFyoeelul+LHR+cybvsj5Yau83l9T+R7S2OMVJPt4UbzkLa7kOfu/zdW5/cQk0eku R4bNVAurs71RLA8P/Hc9eU+s+qpAzmzra7uOTjqwuMr00d603Ojsgoy0D+GpRz8G73xXpmag 8ifY7H/ajxmTd6Ts2Wt/3NTFlHvj939KLMUZiYZazEXFiQCrHh0MUwMAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with 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: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:32:35 -0000

Changes to be made to a -06 update shortly.

On 8/19/19, 11:16 PM, "Adam Roach via Datatracker" <> wrote:

    Adam Roach 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
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    Thanks for a clear, easy-to-read document. I have two small comments.
    >  This led to documenting
    >  things such as the IETF standards process [RFC2026], the IETF
    >  organizational structure [RFC2028], the IETF Nominating Committee
    >  (NomCom) procedures [RFC2282], and the IETF-ISOC relationship
    >  [RFC2031].
    The selection of RFC 2282 here seems arbitrary, as it was not the initial
    version of BCP 10 (which would be RFC 2027), nor is it the current one
    (RFC 7437). Perhaps a reference directly to BCP 10 instead of a specific
    RFC would be the cleanest way to address this (as mention of an obsoleted
    version without also pointing to the current procedure seems a bit awkward).
    >  Under the new IASA 2.0 structure, the IETF is solely responsible for
    >  its administration, including the IETF Trust, IAB, IESG, IETF working
    >  groups, and other IETF processes.  A further exploration of this can
    >  be found in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis].
    The mention of "the IETF" in "...the IETF is solely responsible..." feels
    somewhat ambiguous on the heels of significant treatment of the IETF LLC.
    Clearly, the responsibilities enumerated here are the responsibility of
    "The IETF" as that term has historically been used (the IETF community at
    large). Perhaps including "IETF LLC" in the list of things that "the IETF"
    is responsible for would make the distinction more clear.