Subject: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:18:42 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Version -09 resolves my DISCUSS by making it clear that the limitations on the
IESG appointment that I was concerned about do not exist.  Thanks. for the
lively discussion on that point.

This non-DISCUSS comment is still applicable to -09:
>> — Section 6.10 —
>> What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the
>> normal English meaning of the idiom in here
>
> Hmmm, I don't find this confusing but a term like "as needed" may be more
clear? > I don't think we intend to limit the ability of the board to adjourn
official business > until they can get a quorum of folks in the room.

Ah, I see what you're getting at, then.  So I would just remove the
phrase altogether; what remains says exactly what you mean:

NEW
   If a quorum is not present at any
   meeting of the Board, the Directors present may adjourn the meeting
   without notice, other than announcement at the
   meeting, until a quorum is present.
END

--------------------
And these are left here for the record, but no action is expected:

— Section 4.1 —
Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?

— Section 6.9 —
I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote on an
“act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That seems
like it could end up being problematic.