Subject: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:40:27 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: 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-rfc2031bis/

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

Section 1

   The growth of the Internet over several decades also led to the
   growth of the IETF.  More and more people, organizations, and
   companies rely on Internet Standards.  Non-technical issues, such as

I suppose we can ignore the elephant in the room that the Internet runs on
Proposed Standards.

Section 2

   community.  Open standards are an explicit part of one of the focus
   areas in ISOC's mission: Advancing the development and application of
   Internet infrastructure, technologies, and open standards.

Perhaps a reference to https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/ is in
order?

Section 3

   The IETF remains responsible for the development and quality of the
   Internet Standards.  Apart from the roles described below, the IETF
   and ISOC acknowledge that ISOC has no influence whatsoever on the
   technical content of Internet Standards.

As for Roman, this struck me as perhaps overly strong, and perhaps
intended to refer to "organizational" influence or influence "as an
institution", though perhaps the later text about involvement of ISOC
employees "as individual contributors rather than on institutional
grounds" suffices.

Section 5

   The charter of the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) [RFC2850] states
   that "the IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of
   Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical,
   architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters
   pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies".  This

Is there anything on the  ISOC side that documents how they accept
advice from the IAB or reach out to the IAB for such advice?

Section 6

   trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property rights.  As part of
   the IETF Trust arrangement, IETF standards documents can be freely
   downloaded, copied, and distributed without financial or other
   distribution restrictions, though all rights to change these
   documents lie with the IETF.  The IETF Trust also provides legal

Is that truly "all rights" or only as it applies to documents published
under the RFC 5378 terms (as opposed to, say, the "pre5378Trust200902"
ipr attribute in the XML vocabulary)?

Section 7

   Under the new IASA 2.0 structure, the IETF is solely responsible for
   its administration, including the IETF Trust, IAB, IESG, IETF working
   groups, and other IETF processes.  A further exploration of this can

I'm not sure whether there's a nit here or not, but it kind of reads
like this is saying that (e.g.) "IETF working groups" are part of the
IETF's "administration", which requires a certain mindset to seem true.

Section 13

I agree with the secdir reviewer that having a link to the LLC
operational agreement would be helpful.

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:19:46 +0000

Thanks also for these changes! This will be incorporated into -06 shortly.

In Section 5, on ISOC taking IAB advice: not sure they have anything formal, you may want to ask them if this is important to you (I don’t think it must be resolved for the purpose of updating this document).

In Section 6, IETF is in charge of changing IETF documents.

In Section 7, not sure what the question is... The IETF is solely responsible for IETF working groups - ISOC plays no role in that.

Jason

On 8/22/19, 9:40 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    
    
    Section 1

    
    Section 2

    
    Section 3

    
    Section 5

    
    Section 6

    
    Section 7

    
    Section 13

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:23:56 -0500

> In Section 5, on ISOC taking IAB advice: not sure they have anything formal, you may want to ask them if this is important to you (I don’t think it must be resolved for the purpose of updating this…

It's not that important to me.

> In Section 6, IETF is in charge of changing IETF documents.

I guess it depends on whether "rights to change these documents" means "to
prepare derivative works" or something else.  "rights to distribute
different content under the same RFC NNNN name" is perhaps of academic
interest, I suppose, but unlikely to ever happen in practice.
My understanding was that the Trust does not have the exclusive right to
produce derivative works for some (pre-2008) RFCs, even if it does have the
right to do so.

> In Section 7, not sure what the question is... The IETF is solely responsible for IETF working groups - ISOC plays no role in that.

Are, e.g., "IETF working groups" part of the "IETF administration" (as
opposed to, say, the "IETF workflow")?  This seems like basically an
editorial question and I'm not sure what the intent was, anyway.

Thanks,

Ben