Reviewing: draft-malamud-consultant-report-00.txt

Graham Klyne <> Tue, 07 September 2004 15:50 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02190; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:50:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4iIL-0006ci-Va; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:54:10 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4i03-0007PN-Cd; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:35:15 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4hod-0005Ag-2m for; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:23:27 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29474 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4hs5-0005vb-78 for; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:27:01 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id i87FNNv24486 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:23:23 -0700
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: gk@
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:06:36 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Subject: Reviewing: draft-malamud-consultant-report-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88

With reference to:

I found this to be an interesting read, conveying many points of which I 
was not previously aware.  At this stage, I feel able merely to comment on 
some aspects of the document, not having sufficiently digested the larger 
issues that it raises.

...  Provision of a Basic Computing Infrastructure

    Part of the philosophy of the IETF support process is to not make
    large organizations whose sole purpose is to support the IETF.  This
    is still a valid approach.

This is new to me (though not inconsistent with my understanding of the 
IETF).  Is it indeed a widely held view?  If so, is there a documented 


3.  Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative Framework

Of the 4 key recommendations raised by this draft, I note that dealing with 
Core Services (Section 3.2) is dealt with at considerably greater length 
than the other recommendations.  Is this because the core services aspects 
of the recommendation are truly more complex and/or more difficult to 
address than the other recommendations?

I don't claim this is the case, but I feel I should ask if there is a 
possibility that discussion may dwell overmuch on this (more) technically 
oriented recommendation (parts of which might be seen as falling within the 
operational remit of an Administrative Director?) because that is what the 
community best understands?

...  Sample Draft Principles of Establishment and Governance

A nit, concerning:
    6.  The annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of the IETF
        Foundation shall be announced on the IETF mailing list at least
        30 days before it occurs and must be held at a regular IETF
        meeting.  This meeting shall be open to IETF attendees and
        minutes shall be promptly posted on-line.

If posted online means at a web address, then the community should be told 
where to find the minutes.  I suggest adding:  ", and announced to the IETF 
mailing list" (with some rearrangement of punctuation to ensure appropriate 
grouping of the requirements.)



Graham Klyne
For email:

Ietf mailing list