Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:24 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Magnus Westerlund 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Having not followed this at all I do see some question marks in regards to
> the
> IRTF that I would like to have clarification on thus the Discuss position.
>
> Why isn't IRTF disucssed in this section, or having its own section of
> similar
> nature?
>
> 4.6.  Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the IETF Leadership
>
>    The IETF LLC Board is directly accountable to the IETF community for
>    the performance of the IASA 2.0.  However, the nature of the Board's
>    work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers
>    of the administrative support services.  The Board and the IETF
>    Executive Director should not consider their work successful unless
>    the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support
>    that the IETF is receiving.
>
>
The administrative support for the IRTF has historically been bundled into
either the support of the IAB or to the meeting support (when the RGs are
meeting at the IETF meeting).   The IRTF chair, as a member of the IAB,
would be able to express concerns she or he had with the administrative
support services.

This doesn't mean that the LLC Board couldn't seek out the input of the
IRTF chair for direct discussion of concerns; this section describes what
the board must do, but doesn't limit them to only that.


> Can someone please explain why the IETF LLC role for IRTF are almost not
> at all
> described? For example is IRTF not a significant internal customer?
>
> Also, what is the relation between the IRTF and IETF community? As the IETF
> community does not appear to have a definition, it is not possible to
> determine
> if IRTF is counted as part of the IETF community or not. In my thinking the
> IETF and IRTF communities are not the same set, and it is not obvious that
> IETF
> community is the super set.
>
>
I think we use IETF in two ways.  This first encompasses the set of working
groups and structures that support the standards process,  and the second
is used more broadly, to include the IAB, IRTF, Hackathon, RFC series and
other parts of the Internet technical community which are gathered here.  I
think when we say "IETF community", we generally mean the second, because
we have no better term.  We could change the title to say something like
"Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the other Leadership groups", but I
am not personally sure that is an improvement.


> I think some clarification on the IRTFs relation are needed in this
> document.
>
>
I don't really want to open RFC 4440 or BCP 8 for this, so I would be
interested to know what you think the minimum clarification here would be.
Would adding the IRTF as an additional internal customer be sufficient?

Ted


>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>