The IETF-ISOC Relationship
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-08

Thank you for addressing my COMMENTs.

I agree with Alvaro that I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis should be a Normative reference, and also that there should be a better reference / more info on ISOC.

I also found the phrasing of:
"The Poised95 Working Group concluded that the Internet Society (ISOC), which was formed in 1992, was the best organization" to be somewhat awkward -- I initially misread it as saying that Poised95 was formed in 1992, and it took a few passes to figure out what it was referring to; unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to reword to address this, other than removing ", which was formed in 1992," (which doesn't really seem relevant).

Two easy to address comments:

(1) §1: "As a result of the the IASA 2.0 structure [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis] and formation of the IETF LLC, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC has changed."  I think that I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis should be a Normative reference.  

(2) I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis uses this document as a Normative reference, and points to it when defining ISOC (in §4.1); but there is no explicit reference to ISOC, or even its mission (which seems to be quoted in §2).  Please add one.

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.