Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 27 February 2016 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 406F21AC39E; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 Jgrpf_JcY0H5; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 817C51ABD37; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id yy13so68853133pab.3; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NzcF0337DN53ZhZ9JqNSBcJQ1k3W+2FlVr9Ct1FOEqk=; b=TcsmzFpXr42Gqzf8OrPpt329DevUUXM588xfXR52rLL454sZOD2Nlh3L/XU3uU8udx WCRiw4eW8NUgu1gNTugilp20iPsCaINLSv8dfmlNO7ZvCQBEpv461wqvH55l9EA3yzEm dhoifz4gn54CqcQxir3CXYY0ycxo4rDz8NQ9opg44/H/OffK4EyAu8hK9+rMqPHz/apP qMJ5XLGqeXNeui62PtifAI1JHxn6biQEK9l0UaB5n/1x/y00xxkBxpPzdj97eue3Ba09 20t9OEK26s9Fo+NnojMSyNH7nVWgH+N1zXdMnP9RuDgXHwHuk9bKOubf6dgfqdw0LwQe gqHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NzcF0337DN53ZhZ9JqNSBcJQ1k3W+2FlVr9Ct1FOEqk=; b=eAD+vqc8Xl962o/gdjOuSmcue2ABX1OTr6lhChKnY4e/dfuaP8u7CZAUSVil1dCGWi Tfcux9hcT/9ApRDVk3Kj5DuKrO7oV+MTO0v4SbYFQn8RTm8KL3t9rB2o8M+ZDbdFFKSm VUK32xjFXq+N48nprHR9/OjgY/o/odGh0kPdPEYVhqWYUPJa1xO2il9CEieCx/FxIJVa 28t0yJe28npsT5VOT81JgQ2BAkcO5UcS7wGp/FW44LeJVh6wsdn756iX0TVcp4y8eRt2 xZgemAn7FUnhYK+ewyJQ5uznCQAuYqD8ejmVaUHthK8vvXZI96taogzWQD3YNQ7QxPeG /diQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI73fsW3YYdcB4ReU2l6yUFvtb/ypxEeKIxUAt+GqC5SuU3ri7jua7keANuzBG47g==
X-Received: by 10.67.23.202 with SMTP id ic10mr11006079pad.127.1456602570108; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.22] (125.25.255.123.static.snap.net.nz. [123.255.25.125]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ud8sm27824100pac.11.2016.02.27.11.49.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVDpMsFuSMHPvkT2vXngGJkNsWDqL-g1EipcCUNjqa2Ssg@mail.gmail.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <CALaySJJfyikA7o5CEiQvbjNF-d7EzUi-TTsTWnxo2yb_jBibag@mail.gmail.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:49:38 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0y-N_w9LyZIKEfJ-qdPQrlAfXys>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:49:32 -0000

Bob,

I agree with you. I didn't actually advocate the minimalist version;
I just wanted to point out that we need a BCP in any case.

So, I suggest something like this:

OLD:
   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB
   appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will
   make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this
   document, without requiring further modification to this document.
   Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.

NEW:
   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF
   appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may
   make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of
   the processes embodied in this document, pending any modification to
   this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.

     Brian

On 26/02/2016 12:35, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>>>
>>> [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point;
>>> it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's
>>> being changed in how we document this process.]
>>
>> I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats
>> on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling
>> them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says
>> just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB."
>>
>> Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if
>> the minimalist version attracts interest.
>>
> 
> I think it should remain an RFC in the current style.  I think it’s an important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documented in an RFC.
> 
> Further, the ISOC By-laws don’t change very often, from a practical point of view we don’t need to be concerned this document will need to be updated very often.  The last ISOC by-laws change that this update is dealing with took several years to go from conception to adoption
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>