Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 02 February 2016 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB3B1B308A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:19:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_SEX=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gVx-NWlWct40 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:19:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69B821B3081 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:19:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2493; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454444382; x=1455653982; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=1sSLFT3/8OOL9Uo1L7BkTJiAxzlUGQZA3GlFtjysSh0=; b=DDpPP+o8fsebvkYO//lRX8QcU6HYiNCA+f2jLB2h3aOxC5wd138iG4Px UFEICnIc+DQc940biu1d7suMLSDSrtojepadA3mCMSxbouNR6WdW0fI6V ZAHY6Bsf2OJPLufAM1kAeE7Y2IJhZyqh0Aq7nt98fQ8fKJIT1HZahKKOL A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B6AgD0DrFW/xbLJq1ejVKxbQ6BZIYNAoIEFAEBAQEBAQGBCoRCAQEEI1URCxgJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQEQiAewWo5tAQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBARIIiUt7hzKBOgEEhU2NH4QFgnqBY4Y5gjWBW4dFhVGFb4hQHgFDg2U7ihkBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,386,1449532800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="649002979"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Feb 2016 20:19:38 +0000
Received: from [10.61.202.169] ([10.61.202.169]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u12KJcGM017573; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:19:38 GMT
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20160202182036.26498.27650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56B10131.7040603@gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56B10F59.4030606@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:19:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56B10131.7040603@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="c48HissUu4xe6DWxv8PjMwf4LV1W8WAEC"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0AWbkqRfHjoGsCTH2OyhjewCFQU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:19:44 -0000

Hi Brian,

See below.

On 2/2/16 8:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this draft mixes up two things.
>
> (1) A proposal that the IAB Chair's ex officio seat in the IAOC be changed
> to be a seat for an IAB voting member designated by the IAB. That of course
> can only be achieved by an RFC that formally updates RFC 4071 and so becomes
> part of BCP 101.
>
> (2) A description of some IAB internal organisational matters, which the IAB
> is clearly free to arrange how it wants, and publish if it wants. IAB
> internal arrangements don't need to be BCPs.
>
> I've got nothing to say about (2).
>
> About (1), I think we should hear the pros and cons, because I doubt if
> this proposal arose in a vacuum. In particular, how would this help the
> IAOC be more effective and more responsive to community concerns?
>

Pro:  it is best to have the possibility of delegating responsibility to
someone who really can devote all the time necessary to the role.  You
may recall that the IAB chair's time is in quite high demand.  The IAOC
is only one of many matters that can come to her or his attention.  I
view this as a simple matter of scaling.

Pseudo-Con (really a pro): the IAB chair keeps substantial context in
his head, and can bring that to bear when dealing with the IAOC. 
However, it is better to have the chair share that context with other
board members, and particular any delegate to this role.  For one thing,
it reduces the impact when the chair departs the board.

Eliot