term for 3rd RTG AD

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 29 December 2014 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 7655C1A9253 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:09:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 NjkEqfrLG1qI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EFC1A911B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D0520012; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B03A4637FE; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:09:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FF8637EA; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:09:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: term for 3rd RTG AD
In-Reply-To: <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi>
References: <5614C286-0CD2-4DAD-A846-510EE38D1B9A@ietf.org> <549DB615.90408@gmail.com> <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:09:19 -0500
Message-ID: <24548.1419894559@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Lm_HabMhtLxU4kTN-htDkD9HKzE
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Dec 2014 23:09:29 -0000

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
    >    (Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment with three
    > RTG ADs for one year.)

I hadn't thought yet as to the term and rotation by which the 3 RTG ADs would
get re-evaluated.  RFC3777 (and bis) say that the terms shall be such that
"half the IESG" gets evaluated each year.
(If the writeup explained that, I missed it)

As such, it would likely be best if the new RTG AD was a either 1 year or 3
year term simply so that it's opposite the IETF Chair term.  However, any
additional flipping around due to the new area would change that anyway.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-