Ballot for draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
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).
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.
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?
small nit: s/The IETF LCC/The IETF LLC/
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.