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

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 21:50:09 -0700

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the wording in Section 2 to be a bit odd: it sounds like it’s saying
that things have always been the case before, but are perhaps so no longer. 
Can we re-word it a little to make it clear that these aspects have not
changed, though other details of the relationship have?  Maybe something like
this (adjust as you see appropriate):
 ”ISOC and the IETF have historically been and remain philosophically aligned.
 ISOC's connection with the IETF community has always played an important role
 in its policy work.  ISOC has always been an advocate for multistakeholder
 processes, which include the technical community.  These have not changed, and
 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.”

Where Section 4 cites RFC 7437, it should cite 7437bis.

While I always find British spellings delightful, ISOC’s own web site uses
“program” (see, for example,
https://www.internetsociety.org/fellowship/ietf-policy-program/).  We should be
consistent with that.

The first sentence of Section 7 leads me to expect the paragraph to continue
talking about funding from ISOC, but it has nothing further to do with that.  I
suggest a paragraph break after the first sentence, and removing ”in
particular” from the second.

   Note that it is possible
   that some of those services are provided by ISOC or involve ISOC
   staff.

I would say “may be provided”.  Does that not feel better?

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:45:31 +0000

I seem to have missed this for the -06 update so posting a -07 in a second to address these changes. 

Thanks!
Jason

On 8/8/19, 12:50 AM, "Barry Leiba via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    

       Note that it is possible

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:02:29 -0400

Thanks, Jason; that looks good (there's a typo in your addition in
Section 2: "and continued to be" should be "and continues to be").

Barry

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:35:09 +0000

Thanks, Barry - will fix that.

On 8/22/19, 6:02 PM, "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Barry