Re: [Iasa20] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:29 PM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>  
> > 2) Sec 4.4.: "Unification: The IETF LLC provides the corporate legal home for
> >       the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet
> >       Research Task Force (IRTF), and financial support for the
> >       operation of the RFC Editor."
> > I'm wondering why the RFC Editor is named here but no other services the IETF
> > contracts with...?
> > 
> > Similar in section 7: "environment within which the work of the IETF, IAB,
> >    IRTF, and RFC Editor can remain vibrant and productive."
> > I understand that the money flow is different for e.g. IANA, however, they also
> > provide an important function.
> > 
> > And similar in section 7.7.: "The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, and
> > IRTF.  Therefore,
> >    the IETF LLC's funding and all revenues, in-kind contributions, and
> >    other income that comprise that funding shall be used solely to
> >    support activities related to the IETF, IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor,
> >    and for no other purposes."
> > 
> > I'll need some help from folks more in tune with Editor/Secretariat/etc. relationships but my sense is that we tried to capture the major contract-signing entities (LLC Board, IAB) and the main features of the IETF here. Would you like to see a more fulsome list in both of these places as to entities that make up the IETF? (We did have diagrams at one point but omg those made brains hurt, despite RLB's crack abilities.) 
> 
> Actually the opposite. Given it's probably not likely to be helpful to aim for a fulsome list, I was rather wondering why some entities were picked (while others not). So maybe the better solution is to say rather less than more…?
> 
> Suresh and Barry raised this wrt Section 7.7. I'm hoping the Working Group can help gut-check if this needs to be ironed out as we've spent some time discussing this and frankly the RFC Editor was one that folks really wanted an explicit call-out in some areas. I'm happy to do whatever makes sense, but it would be great if someone could suggest text that would streamline this a bit..

The sense that I got from the WG was that people wanted to capture in a consensus IETF document that the budget for the RFC Series Editor would be the LLC’s responsibility, because there are other alternatives imaginable given that the RFC Series is defined to serve the Internet broadly. This is not really the case for the LLC’s other contractors. E.g., it would be hard to argue that someone else should pay MeetEcho for remote participation services at IETF meetings. ICANN provides the IANA protocol parameter registration services to the IETF at no cost, so it does not appear in the budget.

Alissa