Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

Thanks, John!

--On 6. september 2004 12:08 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> So I am left close to the question that prompted your response,
> with little additional information from that response.  I can't
> parse the difference between "scenario A with MOU and maybe some
> other things to be developed as needed" and "scenario B with MOU
> but without pointless or risky tampering with how ISOC is
> organized" ... that is, unless we take Scenario B as requiring
> that everything be figured out and chiseled into granite before
> we do anything.   And I suggest (and will suggest in more detail
> in an upcoming note) that anything that can wait long enough for
> the granite-chiseling is something that probably doesn't need to
> be done at all.

It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total IETF 
consensus:

  Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a documented 

  IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or something else - it IS
  a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have two parties).

Agreed?

The thing that left me most uncomfortable with Scenario B as described was 
that it presented a smorgasboard of options ("here are ten menu choices - 
take your pick"), where some of them (the MoU) were totally obvious, and 
some had (in my mind) severe disadvantages. So we can't say "we go for 
scenario B" and have the discussion be finished, we have to be able to say 
"Options 1, 3, 5 and 7 make sense, the rest does not, and besides, here's 
option 17 that wasn't in the original document".

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf