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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Mon, 29 February 2016 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 183531B3D4C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:58:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.006 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vLyV--Rin-uu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509071B3D4A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-20v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.244]) by resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id QMy41s0095Geu2801My66G; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:58:06 +0000
Received: from [172.19.248.17] ([64.88.227.134]) by resomta-po-20v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id QMxR1s0012ud3wo01Mxbue; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:58:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13D15)
In-Reply-To: <8B06FABD-402A-4997-8908-7E4D8C9B8BAC@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:57:19 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FF19B0CA-F731-4708-91C9-34EB623A06F5@comcast.net>
References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVDpMsFuSMHPvkT2vXngGJkNsWDqL-g1EipcCUNjqa2Ssg@mail.gmail.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <CALaySJJfyikA7o5CEiQvbjNF-d7EzUi-TTsTWnxo2yb_jBibag@mail.gmail.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDvN8fF4ZAH3-2MA4h3FTbUd37NQsy484eoCXy5MBhoGA@mail.gmail.com> <A49865510140628ADEB3DCB6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B5ECD878-81C0-42DE-9170-CAE0529402B6@gmail.com> <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> <56D3534D.4040107@comcast.net> <8B06FABD-402A-4997-8908-7E4D8C9B8BAC@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1456783086; bh=t9rNFzq+QIC385bmgxZqxcpQ5l3ovjLzbT/yyEuqKvs=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=iVjQQl+UYUUiK2NDu3xkpmZzrzlUKGV+Bw8hM1ruhbODtzULuwyxeisyLJ23Wtm0J NcwQejLWf/1ltOVLfHDiP/v+feOpiL+ZZOIMwt4QA+95JhDhUCsIe8SfA+8EKDX8ZF mjLKGZy7VjZqJSLzxPLvpU2JyyQOWMuoitQMUqD+qdu6MmX6sUfVIvneNu2ir6IScs BmlfndQSsVyYC9gOWNgppcS/44RnFNG2iNua1ahPsmYyuv3hAKBfPEtr1bYt00ql1E KOcXBnem9H7OMsVFKA3keoD00MXzPLcuqs87bYGFrI4qGeZ7TN06NgcHLH1b69wq6o MQDnWAh79xW5Q==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fxIz1Oy9zHX1ngso_0o4x2amhe8>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Feb 2016 21:58:12 -0000

Reading your email, I'm under the impression you didn't actually read mine.   I actually suggested that the 2-3 paragraphs of "remember to update the BCP" could be replaced with one sentence of text that didn't ever need to be changed going forward.   

Brian's text is proscriptive without any real teeth - which suggests to me that it is the wrong text - either too little direction or too much direction.  I came down on the side of too much, but provided text to fix it in either direction.  

Mike



Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:46, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> 
> After reading your email, I think Brian’s proposed text is fine.  I don’t think anything more is needed.
> 
> The IAB did the right thing when the ISOC bylaws changed the number of IETF appointed board members, and they are doing the right thing to update RFC3677.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/28/2016 1:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Well, OK.
>>> 
>>> NEW NEW:
>>> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>>> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>>> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>>> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>>> processes embodied in this document. Such changes will
>>> be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
>>> propose a corresponding update to this document within
>>> one year.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>>  Brian
>> 
>> 
>> I'm always somewhat pained by toothless requirements.  E.g.  what's the downside if the IAB fails propose an update, or if they drag out the completion of the update for several years because other things are more important?
>> 
>> The above is either too much or too little.  So if its too much then:
>> 
>> Replace 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 with:  "The IAB shall appoint the IETF-sourced members to the ISOC board with the terms and schedule for such members as described by the ISOC charter, and as they are notified by the ISOC board of IETF-sourced vacancies."
>> 
>> [I see no reason for the BCP to go into the details of which years as a) its not under the IETF's control, and b) it's subject to change if the ISOC board needs to move things around]
>> 
>> If its too little then:
>> 
>> replace 3.4.2 with the Brian's text (replacing "proposed" with "completed") and adding:  "If the IAB fails to complete a change to the BCP within 1 year, then their power to appoint the IETF-sourced members of the ISOC board shall lapse  and such power shall devolve upon the most recently seated IETF nominations committee. The confirmation of such appointments shall remain with the IESG.  The power to make such appointments shall revert to the IAB upon publication of the updated BCP."
>> 
>> [Basically, if the IAB doesn't have time to complete the BCP, then it probably doesn't have time to deal with the ISOC appointments]
>> 
>> 
>> To be clear, I'd go with the "too much" alternative above and just say that the appointments are made on the schedule described by the ISOC.
>> 
>> On the other hand, noting that the language in the rationale section (1.2) is no longer a completely accurate statement of reality (cf appointment of IAOC members), it may make sense to re-address who should be doing these appointments.  Perhaps the IAOC is a better body?  Or this can be folded into the Nomcom process?   Not making any recommendations here, just noting that if we're updating this document, we should make sure it's all valid as of the date of publication.
>> 
>> Later, Mike
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 29/02/2016 05:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba
>>>>> <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>>>>>>> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>>>>>>> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>>>>>>> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>>>>>>> processes embodied in this document, pending any
>>>>>>> modification to this document. Such changes will be
>>>>>>> announced via an IAB statement.
>>>>>> I think a change such as that would be good.
>>>>> I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and
>>>>> statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but
>>>>> that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the
>>>>> BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly.
>>>> I agree.  The IAB shouldn’t delay it’s board appointment until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasonable amount of time.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bob
>