Re: Last Call: <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.txt> (Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area) to Best Current Practice

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 18 December 2014 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB811A87AF; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4zziErd8C5uo; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEA31A008D; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z11so1747924lbi.38; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mlPERHZXwNFpSmv6Z7Jm9ea9atjz/NU7ewXGSEPGoko=; b=oTZ5eEMsh8xCi9VmP5LciJgMI9cI0NebXULXwc3ffCsFCvFXroc9O+Qfh3EoowJCW9 TXWVpcgHTZr2t8TYCZda5Kvi2peMcyUOw2g9wMPJ+KDeMDcW7hLMbFLiNRcs/gSPz7tI ywcnm2zu0ob+pdLhx+h1X3+p/QpYxjnmYlwrA4tp2TlCTNviJQyqXK+9ASfCCty3EZnz mXS7pp+Lx41I8E8HIb3Pm33SkG0dVkH8QGdMcGWRAMmRnOX+4zefacI1vC+RCVmqcSxw UjwkrxCspPIXSx5uwUWKXhpxo11aznYnipn/mQ1thRHEWOAgBiKsGQaYkjaPj1Min/jp umOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id g1mr4611055lam.15.1418942865399; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:47:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:47:45 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.txt> (Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area) to Best Current Practice
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160bda472e6ae050a85619a
Cc: IETF-Announce <>
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, 18 Dec 2014 22:47:49 -0000

There's really nothing as awesome as sending Last Call comments on your own
draft. You should try it some time ... or not.

But please see below.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM, The IESG <> wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area'
>   <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.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
> mailing lists by 2015-01-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

I had a chat with Scott Bradner today, and Scott asked me to explain some
history in a different way. The text he questioned was this:


   In the distant past, all IETF Areas had a single Area Director.  The
   movement from single Area Directors in an Area to pairs of Area
   Directors in most Areas happened over a period of years (for
   reference, see, as part
   of the IESG organizing itself to do the work the IESG is chartered to


Scott said that changes in the number of Area Directors assigned to a given
Area during "the modern era", post Kobe, wasn't quite the linear
progression I described, and suggested (my words, trying to capture his
thoughts), something more like this:


While it's true that recent IESGs have had two Area Directors in each Area
except for the General Area, the number of Area Directors in each Area has
varied since (for reference, see

This variation was due to a number of factors, including workload and
personal preferences, and happened as a natural part of the IESG organizing
itself to do the work the IESG is chartered to do.

At one point, the IESG placed three Area Directors in a single Area (Scott
Bradner, Deirdre Kostick, and Michael O'Dell, in the Operational &
Management Requirements Area, between IETF 36 and IETF 37 in 1996).


I wouldn't mind hearing people's opinions about making this change as part
of Last Call, and I don't think the rest of the IESG would mind, either ...


>    This document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who
>    manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area".  This document
>    updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25).
> The file can be obtained via
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.