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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 24 February 2016 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41B71A887E; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZZENUUfrSg1; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 263F31B29A3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ho8so17945679pac.2; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9vT7bR+PCDtkKLBcdh/3LZ07habHZxEdgKcoXR21HrU=; b=QREWSbE/eW9WTWMKKCgBpFBQr8VTwuDwBiPWhmnX/iYJMFdvr/ETis/IE8+JYfq8yD pAl9mffha884s5ch/CnKeSL8R0995kvSIXs4s8YEHhFHSmCcn+utHAV5yniG2F+kK1nb OGQFfQPiobZqSxDfZ4VIy+SM+88xGW8PdjZLBiPML19mdkJSLE4SA1wj2Bia26OOmc12 cV+bWe0JXtB4sMQxNyD/ihhLugEPZTCVkQBQNKhd2N8ctQXD/ZqEa/09eJ6fQzEOC611 LmHANJX7t+gAXu8adYXlYGALFwFIcMPnAbNTxkGsR+rU9YA2rKM9ZWsb9tOcvLV/PcyP yZ8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9vT7bR+PCDtkKLBcdh/3LZ07habHZxEdgKcoXR21HrU=; b=X+S5a+R1H+ohhJqLXTPEdRnlxgsUp146qChSa1Tkxs4YxSAj6P87IW1jufqK0K8uAQ DRyPW92buwJpgztNd4BridxaxlNkI3k5HPGreLDeiHULL2FyR+jk99uQ/q6q3ctm2YuS mUSJCoofv4ZQeYUZDzBpCja6Qo7X/DTtq7zY4XOk76S8Y8iaN+8YJ2TYJBh2R9oA8aPW gpjxyfDVSUoTKUvLiJ5rHiRoogKpzwksommGclKOA1mJUlCnl5dP8iE6NdUM4Oy7YILC OQDaJtrWF2R5wctany/4U6gX5aKIWROOZGZHaYpyZqujRMXcgT5A9S7XgS+6TSCsSoKI miug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQia/blYVnKAmYww2deVi4yGkxuQxOWs4XZpcQe1qDSBvKhU6kl5fe/Pnu1w6sfGg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ti10mr57578201pab.128.1456340790837; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7256:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7256:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id d8sm6777657pas.14.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
To: Barry Leiba <>,, IAB <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:06:33 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:06:32 -0000

On 25/02/2016 07:56, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The main substantive changes are the fourth board appointment and this
> paragraph:
>    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.
> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
> modifications" might mean.  Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.

Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
to updating the rules accordingly?


> But 3677bis is now basically saying that BCP 77 is now obsolete, that
> this version is the last one and is indeed documenting current
> practice, and that future changes will be made by IAB decision and not
> by revision of BCP 77.
> Is that the intent?  If so, maybe it would be better now to simply
> make BCP 77 obsolete and shift the whole thing into an IAB statement
> at this point.
> Barry