IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-03

[Ballot comment]
Abstract refers to I-D.ietf-iasa2-trust-update as "Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust" while it is "Update to the Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust"

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this. I have one minor non-comment:

§3, last paragraph: "... the IETF Trust is a low-activity entity where changes are minimal and gradual, and there are no pressing issues."

Sure, taunt the universe.  :-)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this.

§3, last paragraph: "... the IETF Trust is a low-activity entity where changes are minimal and gradual, and there are no pressing issues."

Sure, taunt the universe.  :-)

[Ballot comment]
I really appreciate this work. As Leslie said, one of these days, we're not going to be able to ask her to archive-dive about decisions that happened a decade in the past, and having this written down if we need it is valuable.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for deciding to publish this rationale document; it's a good piece of text
to have in an easy to find location.  My only comments are editorial nitpicking.

Section 4

  Given all this, one approach was to have trustees appointed by the
  NomCom, IESG, and ISOC Board of Trustees, or even the new IETF
  Administration LLC legal entity (but the Internet Society is perhaps
  more focused on the broad use of the IETF Trust assets and not merely
  administrative aspects).

nit: it's a bit unclear to me what the "but" in the parenthetical is
contrasting to.  Are we considering (ISOC BoT vs. IETF LLC) as picking one
of the trustees (with the NomCom and IESG picking the rest)?

Section 5

  And once the updated procedures were in place, the IETF Trust has its
  management nominated in the usual manner, and the exceptional IESG
  process is no longer needed.

nit: is there a past/present mismatch between "were" and "has"/"is"?

[Ballot comment]
Abstract:

>  At the time RFC NNNN was published, IETF administrative structure
>  changes ("IASA 2.0") had an impact on the IETF Trust because members
>  of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) IAOC

Nit: "(IAOC) IAOC" seems redundant.

[Ballot comment]
I have a few nits below and have folded in outstanding IETF LC comments as well.

Section 2:

s/IETF's Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/

s/the members of the IAOC also serve/the members of the IAOC also served/

s/ex-officio/ex officio/

Section 3:

s/One could imagine/One could have imagined/

s/IETF process/IETF processes/

s/low activity entity/low-activity entity/

Section 4:

I think one more sentence at the end of the last paragraph is needed, e.g., "The IESG had previously been the confirming body for the IAOC, so it has been retained in that role for the trustees."

Section 5:

OLD
Fortunately, there was no pressing need to change all the components
  at the same time.

NEW
Fortunately, there was no pressing need to change all the components
  of the IAOC and its dependent organizations at the same time.
 
Section 9:

Please delete the unused references.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale@ietf.org, jon.peterson@neustar.biz, iasa20@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, Jon Peterson , iasa2-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Discussion of the IASA 2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity
2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Discussion of the IASA
2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-10-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IASA 2.0 changes will have an impact on the IETF Trust because
  members of the IET Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) IAOC,
  which is being phased out, have served as Trustees of the IETF Trust.
  This discussion document provides background on the current IETF
  Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the founding
  documents during a transition to a new arrangement, and provides a
  rationale for the update.

Note:

The following text will be removed from the next version of the document:
"This memo is provided only for discussion.  There is no intention to
  publish this memo as an RFC."


The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iana2-trust-rationale provides background for changes being made to the IETF Trust. From the abstract:

  The IASA 2.0 changes will have an impact on the IETF Trust because
  members of the IET Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) IAOC,
  which is being phased out, have served as Trustees of the IETF Trust.
  This discussion document provides background on the current IETF
  Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the founding
  documents during a transition to a new arrangement, and provides a
  rationale for the update.

draft-ietf-iana2-trust-update provides a discussion and overview of the forthcoming changes to the IASA, including the elimination of the IAOC, and the impact of those changes on the IETF Trust in particular. It records why the decision was made to keep the IETF Trust intact, rather folding it into a new structure associated with the IASA, and how Trustees will be selected in the absence of the IAOC. It also gives some consideration to the timing of the transition and the necessity of making certain the transition creates no problems for the administration of the IETF Trust. The IASA2.0 WG requests its publication as an Informational RFC.

2. Review and Consensus

This document was reviewed reviewed by the IASA2.0 WG. There was some discussion during WGLC of whether this document should advance to Information RFC or simply be allowed to expire. The group expressed a slight preference for advancing the document, as it is referenced by draft-ietf-iana2-trust-update.

There were a few review comments from the WG that should be implemented before this document becomes an RFC. It is anticipated that those changes will be wrapped into the document with any last call comments. For example, the last sentence of Section 1 now states that this document was not targeting RFC status, which it clearly now is.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require an IPR declaration.

4. Other Points

IDnits reports no significant issues with the document (it does lack a Security Considerations and it has no considerations for the IANA, but it needs neither). In particular, there are no normative downreferences from this document.