Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Comment on RFC2031-bis

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:49:45 +0000

Great suggestions, Olaf!

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:18 AM
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>, Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] [EXTERNAL] Re: Comment on RFC2031-bis

Folk,

This works for me.

A suggestion on the text below:

OLD:
ISOC maintains liaison relationships and memberships in other
Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), which directly benefits
the IETF.

NEW:
ISOC maintains liaison relationships and memberships in other
Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) and related organizations,
which directly benefits the IETF.

MOTIVATION:
Introducing some vagueness with ‘related organizations’ since not all of these groups are formal SDOs. For instance, the representation for the IETF in the European Multi Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation is on the ISOC name-plate (although I might be as confused about this as anybody else). Coincidentally the two people representing the IETF there are ISOC staff members - but that is coincidental, they are IAB appointed volunteers.

Which brings me to my next point. ISOC staff does participate in the standards process, they do so as individual contributors. I think it is important to clarify that in section 4 of the the 00 draft. A suggested phrase: Involvement of ISOC’s employees in the standard process e.g. as document editors, or in leadership positions, is as individual contributors rather than on institutional grounds.

Finally, I think it would be nice that if in the ‘ISOC also supports the IETF standards process more indirectly’ we add some verbiage about ISOC in its technical work using the standards developed in the IETF as its basis. An example of that is our Deploy360 program, although that does not necessarily need to be mentioned.

—Olaf (as an individual contributor ;-) )

On 10 Dec 2018, at 6:10, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

Hi Alissa,

thanks for the quick response. Please, find below my proposal for
addressing your three points:

We can add the following text at the end of the "ISOC's Role in the
IETF Standards Process" Section:

ISOC maintains liaison relationships and memberships in other
Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), which directly benefits
the IETF. For example, in 1995 ISOC established a liaison
relationship with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on behalf of the IETF. Many
years later, a national body introduced a proposal, called TIsec,
that included a protocol specification that was almost identical to
IPsec ESP [RFC4303]. Due to the existing liaison relationship,
straightforward communication [LS1220] was able to avoid confusion
in the marketplace caused by nearly identical yet non-interoperable
standards.

ISOC also supports the IETF standards process more indirectly (e.g.,
by promoting it in relevant communities) through several
programmes. For example, ISOC's Policymakers Programme to the IETF
(usually referred to simply as ISOC's policy fellows programme)
gives policy experts an opportunity to interact directly with the
IETF technical community.

[RFC4303] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4303.txt

[LS1220] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1220/

We can the following text to the "Financial and Administrative
Relationship with ISOC" Section, after the first paragraph:

The IETF LCC establishes contracts with third parties to provide
different types of services to the IETF. Note that it is possible
that some of those services are provided by ISOC and involve ISOC
staff.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 07-Dec-18 20:02, Alissa Cooper wrote:

Hi Gonzalo,

On Dec 7, 2018, at 4:13 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Alissa,

thanks for your comments! With respect to the scope and intended
audience of this document, when I was asked to help with this, that is
the first question Jason and I actually discussed (with input from a few
people). So, I agree it will be good to get on the same page regarding
what exactly we need from this document. Our thinking is the following:

The original RFC2031 was a discussion document intended to "gauge
consensus" and "allow further discussions". However, at this point we do
not need a discussion document. Instead, we decided to have a *brief*
updated document explaining at a *high level* what is the current
relationship between ISOC and the IETF. The idea was to provide a
*summary with pointers* to the authoritative documents so that
interested readers could start from this document, get a general idea of
what the relationship is all about, and find all other relevant
documents for details (i.e., RFCs and the operating agreement).

So, considering the intended scope above, you are right that the
document should mention that there are programs between the IETF and
ISOC. As an example of such programs, we could mention the policy
fellows program, for instance. Since we are describing things at a high
level, I do not think we need to mention the fact that there may be some
programs that end up being handled by the IETF LLC instead. Even if the
situation is fluid regarding the details, we can safely describe the
fact that ISOC has programs that aim to promote the IETF in the community.

With respect to ISOC staff currently providing support services, we can
mention the fact that the IETF LLC may contract third parties to provide
services and that ISOC may be one of those third parties... I would not
provide any details beyond that because the actual services being
provided will be most likely changing as time goes by.

What do you think?

This sounds like a reasonable approach.

Are there any other areas the document is also
missing?

Perhaps the fact that ISOC maintains liaison relationships and memberships in other SDOs that the IETF leverages at times? That is the only other broad category that I can think of.

Thanks,
Alissa

Thanks!

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 03-Dec-18 17:02, Livingood, Jason wrote:

Fair enough! I'll confer w/Gonzalo.

On 12/3/18, 9:58 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]> wrote:

On Dec 3, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]> wrote:

On 11/30/18, 3:49 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Which leads me to a broader question: what is the goal of this document and who is its intended audience? It addresses only some aspects of the IETF-ISOC relationship and not others

Since RFC 2031 existed, we needed to update/replace it since what 2031 described was no longer accurate, and so its been on our work list for some time. We tried to limit things solely to what 2031 focused on. Perhaps some text explaining that there are many more aspects of the relationship not covered in the document or something like that? Open to any suggestions.

Presumably 2031 exists due to particular circumstances of the time (given the references to the Poised WG, etc.). A lot has changed at ISOC and the IETF in the last 22 years, much of which is unrelated to IASA 2.0. To me it would make more sense to either try to capture the full relationship at a high enough level that the document won’t be immediately out-of-date as things continue to change, or to just obsolete 2031. Sticking to the scope that was used in 1996 seems hard to justify.

Alissa

_______________________________________________
iasa20 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman

Internet Society<https://www.internetsociety.org/>

Tweets as: @kolkman<https://twitter.com/@kolkman>

Chief Internet Technology Officer