Subject: [Iasa20] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:15:57 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for a clear, easy-to-read document. I have two small comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  This led to documenting
>  things such as the IETF standards process [RFC2026], the IETF
>  organizational structure [RFC2028], the IETF Nominating Committee
>  (NomCom) procedures [RFC2282], and the IETF-ISOC relationship
>  [RFC2031].

The selection of RFC 2282 here seems arbitrary, as it was not the initial
version of BCP 10 (which would be RFC 2027), nor is it the current one
(RFC 7437). Perhaps a reference directly to BCP 10 instead of a specific
RFC would be the cleanest way to address this (as mention of an obsoleted
version without also pointing to the current procedure seems a bit awkward).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§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
>  be found in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis].

The mention of "the IETF" in "...the IETF is solely responsible..." feels
somewhat ambiguous on the heels of significant treatment of the IETF LLC.
Clearly, the responsibilities enumerated here are the responsibility of
"The IETF" as that term has historically been used (the IETF community at
large). Perhaps including "IETF LLC" in the list of things that "the IETF"
is responsible for would make the distinction more clear.

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 19:32:28 +0000

Changes to be made to a -06 update shortly.
Thanks!!
Jason

On 8/19/19, 11:16 PM, "Adam Roach via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote: