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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 25 February 2016 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86321B2DE3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:54 -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 HDfmfFyp4BwC; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB8B1B2DBA; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q63so24215528pfb.0; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EPgbScdT0OmcFiLgTXtRjxtbu1ZqRcb7ifkxmJfE1s4=; b=lf+nHG4d6zVoo0KZ0orSEnRRiDPHYGcfQUyTXQeU0bF0ZBEiXvwWKj0wBQ51tFM4Ok 3hTsqDCmjSMFOhgtmAVG6YEzTDexZPURDYR66MAn70tT4WMgGewmpRX6tgDjxLCyVm62 Haf9AoZEQd+9qn3ZHip2MXp/2Er2Ni96ClJ7j2K1wMsqs3emM8VDla+qSVp6po8NgICx 2lwajCcpAAkueBhs7p9IAgc+dwu5q5Wsc6Qxo7hwucehA+Y4cSdsRJP/tW7TAe+G4OBW JQur0pgKawXPNoxtxDJV+elBdKfAxmyvkfkXCU+XiBEhG1n9kSSvpA9wWDC11hT9Rcia g5yQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EPgbScdT0OmcFiLgTXtRjxtbu1ZqRcb7ifkxmJfE1s4=; b=TbyGDa2upE+SgDdw+06B1hLMw3aM83ziCQVo5oBVfj4uRk2/B2hGLoimiECTEVTyJk Rmh5O2DS19hKmCCRB18a6HGmk8I1ESumzfkjVOpZOkeNRH6CjWk0fJkKNkpR+CLfnIMR VuoCGkWOdP2FNKo0v5w+dTWz+s/SApEjZxzIVrFB10vJP795tvQn7hiA1IlhU/mrUnHo Lnl6+T4inTPGC+zWb97W5pXOUKFUWgrQf0KmiqMAxWzKlQq0QbWL9kGxf9ScT0UeBim2 929rHS79mvQDi0EJjV00ATVphpU6x7dQMUZ4hsOQnw0XI7Uel9Ej9y8xgdlB7w9jZZwM zGeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORctZh/ByrQ0eRF4GCMRPFyD4Wg9xG+9qL1b7QiZSR543XGPrggAt1YEnSRT/qe2w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f21mr58203027pff.134.1456369192840; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id n28sm7942207pfa.45.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
To: Barry Leiba <>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:59:55 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IAB <>, "" <>, IETF discussion list <>
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 02:59:54 -0000

On 25/02/2016 11:37, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Barry said...
>>>> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
>>>> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
>>>> modifications" might mean.  Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
>>>> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
>>>> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
>>>> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.
> Brian said...
>>> Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
>>> to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
>>> such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
>>> to updating the rules accordingly?
> Joe said...
>> I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the
>> difference between a substantive change and a minor one.

Absolutely. I don't distrust the IAB at all, but if we're going to
have a BCP at all, it needs to be done right.

> Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to
> appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make
> absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to.
> That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and
> make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the
> process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB
> statement.
> [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.