Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> (Update to the Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust) to Best Current Practice

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 September 2018 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98626131157 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 6cGHd5ilyduV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (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 08A45130F33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id q4-v6so8645634otf.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RWRQS1ZJZKLWwc2tCYRZpRvB7HI/f8qOFk/3bpaYL+4=; b=eZab8ebAoX76oOO7YpjOJgMt6gSARPo7m1q4yzCmwNUSmx3Tco05BaBzcNStNTrW+h 7bCRo6LdtScG2ArAAkBRhtP16VA8QETFJIAM0I3Ktu0wgY3uFmzSAWk91+5XbYvhMVZ/ HDGdjti8C3O2jPQD6gf/xE7fCxb149Ef6oVOJGGDLyqBhU+5y0EFhhAkmQWXwDckZ99y uyOMCQCgW3nV58YpDT7ycFoJhjvkcw8eD4N9oZjLq500xcwPtWxzmUkOSqj0h5ai19kQ mkW9lC/P1T/Zs1HTfoVRpPMggut1vS2EmvfRbkaIA9xR2Q+V3r/GqLN0jLRF4FfSeAlF oFzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RWRQS1ZJZKLWwc2tCYRZpRvB7HI/f8qOFk/3bpaYL+4=; b=P0R+/sxG2wamXBKzLLVQnra8IVSMlrTwtjeNZZxT3DRkav49EyznhFE70Bc5OZEMYl wch2R2OIV8N7VxUJAcoR2XpNQJecYk2kWMXkKvqzfEfI4HDsBA/uIjAQcFPx2kV4DQM3 OsQOLkIC9cBAWdeQ/KH7DT6THZsdHROqRpbGTMlW6P7BXlJkNkcKaswTWOgfeBf4CMYq NkCI8oumTmkdVyKxeJOsvCkkElK3F1QX9h73YQxoBfaVle6RiHyT1kgqPZYh/YlH6zb6 AkNJRqnKRMFktubItfy3HBsv4qeLhrrXV1t3NOd8/c7xdXV9duzwc6fs3kjSi9QzmETX qCbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojTm8ltoXxWnvpWVSglw4g/yLTyCS1lKOqJtCE1/ywIDE7Cxf0s WWS3UW7j4w5wIbiUwJLRsShmx31P74/FXyBhAbOi8Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63p1tid2zSiJktJCHoHsvnRiUSV0Fn3WTwkB8/FoqDlSb2e/gxs/tIdA75bdvGpvONZghz8RYd9QYgfgQ6z+po=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:32c3:: with SMTP id u61-v6mr460951otb.173.1537823368019; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8927:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180924090802.0b3bb098@elandnews.com>
References: <153756470188.20283.12048259576780413892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180924090802.0b3bb098@elandnews.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:08:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAeB1-8V+DMK2FqD436A4mn5shAUrwYSe2B-1hs6MAUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> (Update to the Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust) to Best Current Practice
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009404790576a46703"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IDYZNCYOWubxQ7GgpyGDdLSNa0s>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:09:31 -0000

Howdy,

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:40 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Jari, Ted,
> At 02:18 PM 21-09-2018, The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support
>> Activity
>> 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Update to the
>> Selection
>> of Trustees for the IETF Trust'
>>   <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> as Best Current Practice
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final
>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>
>
> It took me some to understand out what this memo updates as the draft does
> not reference the sections of the previous RFCs which are being updated.  I
> suggest clarifying that in the draft.
>
> Thanks for the review.  The issue here is that RFC 4071 and RFC 4371 will
be obsolete at the end of the IASA 2.0 process, and the aim is to make the
process listed here complete without needing to read the previous
iterations of BCP 101.   If the document didn't reference the previous
document at all, do you think it is clear how the Trustees are selected?


> Shouldn't draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00 be a normative reference?
>
> I don't think so, as it is the "why", where this document is intended to
be narrowly scoped to how.  An informative reference makes sense, and it
has already been suggested.


> The draft states that IETF rules regarding recalls will be applicable for
> this new selection process.  I gather that the authors of this draft are
> aware that a significant  [1] number of IETF participants who participate
> remotely.  A person within that group is systematically disqualified from
> participating in a recall petition.  I unfortunately have to raise an
> objection to the inclusion of the last paragraph in Section 2.
>
> This document doesn't update BCP 10, so I believe your change has to be
directed there, not at this document.

regards,

Ted



> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. The number of registered remote participants for IETF 102 was 547.
>