Re: [Iasa20] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-05

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 20 June 2019 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421261200EF; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:34 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 L9KCZ8dqHlry; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3CE120043; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s3so3740150wms.2; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=eBYqnVpHU+HYKBYyk0UH722Ud/oDyZ9nLCBhciAbrZU=; b=ll/IBsPXZFcQxqRWeX0xnIeBCIBJtKnFmJC7bhZ0dsVht32XKzkDwPqaRM5By6dZi5 yFx1c4mG0dhwJRLLFhq/D137svZaBI4EXF20f+3wo4L/OVqpYkjA80yoPSB429LI7ZrH qHwP89Ofw8RWnhRVcrj7HhLuYLnJgD/5rDHGTdDTp+09M0WQkOf/R8DTqTdc93Mv5WrE qoYTaHAeZy8qUuZeLQFxvmAUdSAEQBsxmnLFcWhuBPzXlav1Da80alvfG7eTKDJyjYI7 HXMbIaTtt82EHWs6QMLjCK76shxJ3H9+CKDgNt/U94DIfyr4amof+Vld1wYRy8yAKoyk 0MTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=eBYqnVpHU+HYKBYyk0UH722Ud/oDyZ9nLCBhciAbrZU=; b=V8tIPpLLmpKowkC65eYVDVRZDKG6kyw2ZXCuKjCRuUk8v7/rD6mKWK0nZY9Qb1ycr0 REeJNccq5V4VqxPjDVoZj30XXEmy6ILB3DrTpWlbqjpOHmlxI+cNakUmcjUg0YTUW2BR Kh04DCrqjhRqCjlYBhRWb8ChgqOMFMl6pn2A0G51RokuUCfvWvan14L5YppWowRGqebk esRVr2RLMQBa+LqreYdfu0OzbFiTf10EIYJ/tD0h2TU1gC0m9icmbdqUBVG3Q1ezOhBP LQDnRxz6HFCQDerPwhBO0Is6oIsW34YkPyWos0F3HluH4Xjts0HGZDkovjLTnvJ/3sLz XSaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVfUfYC7dGpXajzfThRFLaB2CbH77dVsGSY3+9/A1/Df90ie1R0 PhR1j7lMNB1u6TXFx9zFUto=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzx1LPmS3NejHUivuAglYQOQs5M+q1bW9HU1LpX4Y+/9DWnnDFMMjJ5Gsof9dnl4ETeJm1vqw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1d83:: with SMTP id d125mr332233wmd.63.1561048890162; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:1d91:c91e:78fe:34be? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:1d91:c91e:78fe:34be]) by with ESMTPSA id 18sm26924wmg.43.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Bob Hinden <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:41:24 -0700
Cc: Bob Hinden <>,, IASA 2 WG <>, IETF <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-05
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, 20 Jun 2019 16:41:35 -0000


Thanks for the review.  Note the current draft that is out for IETF last call is draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07.

Comments below.


> On Jun 20, 2019, at 12:53 AM, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-05
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-06-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-21
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary: Ready with nits
> Major Issues:
> None
> Minor Issues:
> s3.2, para 1 and para 7: I feel the phrase 'superior candidate' is rather
> demeaning to an incumbent who may have served with distinction. Suggest in para
> 1 s/a superior candidate/an alternative candidate/. In para 7 s/A superior
> candidate  is one who the NomCom believes/The nominated candidate selected for
> each open position by theNomCom, whether incumbent or alternative,  is the one
> that they believe/

This original text from RFC7437 and with my editors hat on, I don’t think we should be rewriting the base text.   I think that is out of scope for this bis.

Personal comment.  I would hope that a NomCom doesn’t change sitting people unless the new person was superior.  Would we want them to just change someone who is doing a good job without good reason?

> Nits and Editorials:
> s2, Confirmed Candidate: s/that has been/who has been/ (for consistency with
> Candidate)


> s3.2, para 1: s/its incumbent/its incumbent, assuming that the incumbent has
> indicated willingness to continue in post,/

ditto, but I also don’t think this is necessary here.  It’s made clear in p5 in the same section.

> s3.2, para 2: Section 5.4 of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-04 indicates that
> there are term limits for the IETF LLC board positions and Section 2 of
> draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-02 indicates there are term limits for IETF Trust
> positions.

rfc4071bis is now -11
trust-update is now -03

This was fixed in draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07.  The text in -07 is:

   Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG, IAB, or IETF
   Trust position, the NomCom may use length of service as one of its
   criteria for evaluating an incumbent.

I don’t see any mention of term limits in draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update -02 or -03.  Where did you see that?

> s3.3, para 3: s/is selected/are selected/

There are only two paragraphs in Section 3.3, I think you mean para 1.

> s3.7.1: The summaries of expertise need to be made public to facilitate
> candidate's ability to address the requirements in their submissions to the
> NomCom and for others to make appropriate comments on candidates.

I assume you are proposing to add this text.   While I personally agree, I think it’s out of scope.