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

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 25 February 2016 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CB81B37C9; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:15 -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=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Q4zTzqnQNpN; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD97C1B37BC; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b67so53293688qgb.1; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=LzSNOwOHyJC+r2beYpW/VWgiK6GWpsBQY6AVFD63Xpc=; b=kkLo5di6y6KAzhscy/hLMUrb4yENefVIFLWbZO6MuonJdKvy8bahII47E+9982BRCS Rx2GoKCkA5VmpkiB6pPSJK1Efuda9G/3ZY0ndODuzW4aWbBqc5cf2GGdPCnI2apmP6ER D9rOseKCYntF5fKkXhDaZmGhgHqcnxAJHKdLkRiXLugHASrNxAe4WYz69gdv63t6CNBk Srn2Z9Ojt230+te/qvK+xS2seBDId+ckutTZpV8T1H/Wue9xi6TRNjjMv/BJyn0NY/B8 2oPJGMHv00Mcy3cWjBnJ1vErCgV10QkB71mpdW9q6mTiLmxgN5bHhwYIXAIpF1tlDPzq nxOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=LzSNOwOHyJC+r2beYpW/VWgiK6GWpsBQY6AVFD63Xpc=; b=NAPWOAVkJjAO+cZu6pR36MEXjsQ4rjP91UGjZ2NzMGM5PcBqnB90BtD+fVp3UqJ8p0 +qR7b2k/OS0/d12J7rWp1ZfdhxxcKyrMbwhl7V2Kp6HW+wH/w+A5BXSPFo/uKYwrGpWk 8A1mNgTbpW0Q+dYrZBOEKOJjaoRx0qZVLU2eDDhVieza1noFcQMTYORwFBb+pNhC8PDe 8u0ZU8/A5pPwZxagJjV70TZ3IUGGkmQOTwfh8eNbtEhCF0QsFizozannmOR2oGCP/D/R zEIA9h20zLE3ldLhym+IUMRhg7n6uT6NYQaQ3PDAEgbeV6zBCV6YBLGSIRPsw0K9+EGf uGkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTpaApQwRgXUPp+VwQmi5QNQ/vfhHLoT7pMsvy2XQjPWfr6L+UnHckmRUOJjGs38w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f47mr60393803qge.0.1456443311931; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u102sm4225848qge.27.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D8BF261E-2974-4894-A5BA-9976D9AEEE61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Bob Hinden <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:06 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>, Bob Hinden <>, "" <>, IAB <>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <>, Barry Leiba <>
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:35:15 -0000


>> [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