Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 D7ACD21E8045 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHfMlhBuB34z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4974421F843C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C1F9A471B; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sAhx9tEEmRhc; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (96-37-2-47.dhcp.sffl.va.charter.com [96.37.2.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9459A470F; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-01.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <93CCDEE4ED0AB0B11FD5FF71@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:33:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <895C8A21-BD9C-4A06-B64D-45E29D8C406D@vigilsec.com>
References: <20120816212429.3635.98463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJKfGW-VWTQT1wUOia-=idwq0f-H=zhvFVcTxvqrvSu7pQ@mail.gmail.com> <06515DE7-EA23-45EC-9C85-E4003777073F@vigilsec.com> <93CCDEE4ED0AB0B11FD5FF71@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:33:48 -0000

>> The document says:
>> 
>> 	   o  Bullet 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by this:	
>> 		
>> 	         The nominating committee comprises at least a
>> Chair, 10 voting	  	         volunteers, 4 liaisons, and an
>> advisor.
>> 
>> The Past Chair is missing.
>> 
>> The adviser is not required, as implied by the "at least" in
>> this sentence.
>> 
>> Also, if I understand properly, the ISOC BoT is allowed to
>> provide a liaison, but they are not required to do so.
> 
> Russ,
> 
> Isn't the "advisor" the "Past Chair" in the context of that
> sentence?   Note that "comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
> volunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor" comes straight out of
> 3777, where it is the first paragraph of item 3 of Section 4.
> 
> To avoid making the text ambiguous, confusing, or overly
> sensitive to things that might change as other things evolve,
> would it to be appropriate to say:
> 
> 	The nominating committee is comprised of a Chair, ten
> 	voting volunteers, the immediate past nominating
> 	committee Chair in an advisory capacity, plus liaisons
> 	and optional additional advisor(s) as described in
> 	Section 4 of RFC 3777.

That is an improvement from my perspective.

Russ