Skip to main content

Entities Involved in the IETF Standards Process
draft-rsalz-2028bis-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-14
07 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-04-14
07 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Sandra Murphy was marked no-response
2022-04-08
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2022-04-07
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-04-07
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-04-07
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-04-07
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-04-07
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2022-04-07
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-04-07
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-04-07
07 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2022-04-04
07 Carlos Bernardos Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Bob Hinden Last Call INTDIR review
2022-04-04
07 Carlos Bernardos Closed request for Last Call review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-03-16
07 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing
2022-03-16
07 Barry Leiba Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Darrel Miller was marked no-response
2022-03-16
07 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-03-16
07 Lars Eggert IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-03-14
07 Cindy Morgan New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-07.txt
2022-03-14
07 (System) Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received
2022-03-14
07 Cindy Morgan Uploaded new revision
2022-03-13
06 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2022-03-11
06 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.

Also: Argh! I replied to Rich thanking him for the changes, but forgot to actually remove the …
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.

Also: Argh! I replied to Rich thanking him for the changes, but forgot to actually remove the DISCUSS position; apologies for the delay.
2022-03-11
06 Warren Kumari Ballot discuss text updated for Warren Kumari
2022-03-11
06 Lars Eggert RFC Editor Note was changed
2022-03-11
06 Lars Eggert RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2022-03-11
06 Lars Eggert RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2022-03-10
06 (System) Changed action holders to Lars Eggert (IESG state changed)
2022-03-10
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-03-10
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2022-03-10
06 Cindy Morgan New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-06.txt
2022-03-10
06 (System) Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received
2022-03-10
06 Cindy Morgan Uploaded new revision
2022-03-10
05 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
Huge apologies on DISCUSSing this so late in the process. I completely missed this until it was pointed out.

I have 2 issues, …
[Ballot discuss]
Huge apologies on DISCUSSing this so late in the process. I completely missed this until it was pointed out.

I have 2 issues, one is editorial, but sufficiently important that it reaches DISCUSS level.
The document uses the singular Editor and Author (and similar) -- it does says:
"This document refers to individual roles in the singular, such as "a Document Editor." and then mentions that "many roles are filled by more than one person at the same time" with a reasonable justification for this.

I'd like to DISCUSS this decision -- I've very concerned that newcomers to the process (and outsiders) will search for things like "IETF author" or "editor" or similar (e.g Chair), and only read the descriptions, not the terminology / disclaimer at the top. Again, I understand that this was done for clarity, but suspect that the audience was for the IETF community, and the potential for confusion by outsiders and newcomers was not considered. I think that the (much messier) "The Document Editor(s) or Author(s)" or "The Document Editors or Authors" or similar.


In addition, a related issue is:
"When a document is composed and edited mainly by an individual, they may be referred to as the Document Author."
This very strongly implies (or even states) that, if there is more than one person writing this, then they are not authors / that you cannot have more than one person being referred to as Document Authors. This certainly doesn't agree with my understanding.
2022-03-10
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2022-03-10
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2022-03-10
05 (System) Changed action holders to Rich Salz, Lars Eggert (IESG state changed)
2022-03-10
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2022-03-10
05 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

I agree with most of the comments from my AD colleagues. Followings are my comments which was …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

I agree with most of the comments from my AD colleagues. Followings are my comments which was not covered by others -

* Section 2.1 : should it not something about the contributors? there is a way to explicitly mention contributors separately than authors or editors. Sometimes the document author list is long, hence we list them in the contributor section. This seems in some cases creates significant distinction between authors, editors and contributors.

* Section 3.2 : working groups also uses interim meetings in between the IETF meetings. Specially during the pandemic time this interim meetings have used in a good way to keep the working group work progressing. This meeting option would be good to mention here.

* Section 3.3 : had a similar observation about the document along the "Standard Track" like Martin Duke. I am happy with the resolution reached in his discuss.

* Section 3.11: I have seen some discussion around ISOC description here and was now sure what was the resolution. Here is my text proposal for this section-

    Internet Society (ISOC) has the mission for advancing the development and application of the Internet infrastructure, technologies and open standards. ISOC helps the IETF standard process by appointing the NomCom Chair, confirming IAB candidates selected by the NomCom, and acting as the final authority in the appeals process. ISOC also supports IETF through variety of programs, and provides a corporate home for the IETF LLC, the administrative entity thats support the IETF, the IAB and the IRTF [ISOCIETF].

  ISOC operates with a Board of Trustees. The way in which the members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees are selected, and other matters concerning the operation of the Internet Society, are described in [ISOC].
2022-03-10
05 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-03-10
05 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

I agree with most of the comments from my AD colleagues. Followings are my comments which was …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this document.

I agree with most of the comments from my AD colleagues. Followings are my comments which was not covered by others -

* Section 2.1 : should it not something about the contributors? there is a way to explicitly mention contributors separately than authors or editors. Sometimes the document author list is long, hence we list them in the contributor section. This seems in some cases creates significant distinction between authors, editors and contributors.

* Section 3.2 : working groups also uses interim meetings in between the IETF meetings. Specially during the pandemic time this interim meetings have used in a good way to keep the working group work progressing. This meeting option would be good to mention here.

* Section 3.3 : had a similar observation about the document along the "Standard Track" like Martin Duke. I am happy with the resolution reached in his discuss.

* Section 3.11: I have seen some discussion around ISOC description here and was now sure what was the resolution. Here is my text proposal for this section-

    Internet Society (ISOC) has the mission for advancing the development and application of the Internet infrastructure, technologies and open standards. ISOC helps the IETF standard process by appointing the NomCom Chair, confirming IAB candidates selected by the NomCom, and acting as the final authority in the appeals process. ISOC also supports IETF through variety of programs, and provides a corporate home for the IETF LLC, the administrative entity thats support the IETF, the IAB and the IRTF.

  ISOC operates with a Board of Trustees. The way in which the members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees are selected, and other matters concerning the operation of the Internet Society, are described in [ISOC].
2022-03-10
05 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-03-10
05 Francesca Palombini [Ballot comment]
Thank you for this needed update to 2028, Rich.

Francesca
2022-03-10
05 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2022-03-10
05 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1

  When a document is composed and edited mainly by an individual, they
  may be referred to as the Document …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1

  When a document is composed and edited mainly by an individual, they
  may be referred to as the Document Author.  The distinction is not
  significant.  This document uses the term Document Editor.

I'd consider "not significant for the standards process", as I believe
that many people do ascribe some significance to the distinction.

Section 2.3

  The Area Director (AD) assigned as the Reponsible Area Director for a
  Working Group will review documents after the Working Group has
  approved them following a last call.  When satisfied, the AD will
  schedule an IETF last call (when needed) and will coordinate the IESG
  review and approval of the document.

Per 8789, isn't "when needed" now "always"?

Section 3.2

  Working Groups ideally display a spirit of cooperation as well as a
  high degree of technical maturity; IETF participants recognize that
  the greatest benefit for all members of the Internet community
  results from cooperative development of technically superior
  protocols and services.

I like the directorate reviewer's suggestion of "technically excellent".

Section 3.4

Looking at the diff from RFC 2028, it seems that we lost some text about
reviewing and approving WG charters.  I believe the current state is that
the IAB reviews charters and provides advice to the IESG, with the final
approval being a matter for the IESG.  So I think it would be worthwhile
to say that it reviews WG charters that are proposed for the IETF.

Section 3.5

  members.  The RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE) is a position
  funded by the IETF LLC, with responsibilities to consult with all
  parties, and be a member of the advisory board.

Maybe s/advisory board/RSAB/ since we just defined the latter term in the
previous sentence?

Section 3.6

  IANA also is responsible for operating and maintaining several
  aspects of the DNS (https://www.iana.org/domains) and coordinating of
  IP address assignments (https://www.iana.org/numbers).

Looking at the diff from RFC 2028, this seems to have lost some of the
flavor that IANA manages the DNS root zone, and is the primary authority
for IP address allocation (in a hierarchical system involving other
entities).

Section 3.7

  The IRTF consists of a number of Research Groups (RGs) chartered to
  research various aspects related to the broader Internet.  The
  products these RGs are typically research results that are often

(nit) "products of"

  Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
  than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
  process as any other proposal.

I agree with John that the "no more weight" statement does not reflect all
situations in practice.

Section 3.11

  Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet
  Society (ISOC), with the Board of Trustees being responsible for
  ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process
  [ISOCIETF].

Looking at [ISOCIETF], I'm not sure what the justification is intended to
be for saying that Internet standardization as a whole is an "organized
activity of" ISOC.  [ISOCIETF] itself says that ISOC "plays a small role",
which seems incompatible with a claim that the whole overall activity is
performed under its aegis.  The IETF LLC is, after all, a disregarded
entity of ISOC, which as I understand things, gives it substantial
independence.

Section 7.2

  [TRUSTEES] Arkko, J., "IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0:
              Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the
              IETF Trust", RFC 8715, DOI 10.17487/RFC8715, February

I'm not sure if it's better to reference 8174 or 8175 where we use
[TRUSTEES].  Maybe both is safer?
2022-03-10
05 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2022-03-09
05 Erik Kline [Ballot comment]
* Thank you to Ted Lemon for the IoT-DIR review.
2022-03-09
05 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-03-09
05 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-03-09
05 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS in the editor's copy.

(2.3) As AD-sponsored documents are in the IETF stream, it would be good to …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS in the editor's copy.

(2.3) As AD-sponsored documents are in the IETF stream, it would be good to note that this mechanism exists and that it bypasses the Working Group role in the process.
2022-03-09
05 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Duke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2022-03-09
05 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the discussion, I'm clearing in anticipation of the discussed changes. Here's the old discuss point for posterity.

Thanks for your work …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the discussion, I'm clearing in anticipation of the discussed changes. Here's the old discuss point for posterity.

Thanks for your work on this document. I'd like to discuss what it says about ISOC's role. In §3.11 regarding ISOC, we have

  Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet
  Society (ISOC), with the Board of Trustees being responsible for
  ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process
  [ISOCIETF].

Looking at ISOCIETF, I don’t see this in plain language anywhere. The strings “rules” and “ratify” don’t appear, and “procedure” doesn’t appear anywhere relevant. The primary relevant section is §4, “ISOC's Role in the IETF Standards Process”, which lists several specifics in the first paragraph:

  ISOC plays a small role in the IETF standards process.  In
  particular, ISOC assists the standards process by appointing the IETF
  NomCom chair and by confirming IAB candidates who are put forward by
  the IETF NomCom, as described in [RFC8713], and by acting as the last
  resort in the appeals process, as described in [RFC2026].

There are also indirect things mentioned later (liaisons, indirect support programs). But none of these things seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.”

We also have, in §6 of ISOCIETF, some words about the IETF Trust, ending in

      One of the IETF
  Trust's trustees is appointed by the ISOC's Board of Trustees.

This, again, doesn’t seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.”


COMMENT:

I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating model accurately, if I understand correctly (and I may not!) there’s some bleedover between at least CFRG and standards-making, such that the IETF relies on CFRG for (mumble magic crypto smoke mumble), and so the relationship isn't as cut-and-dried as the section makes it sound.

Is this text intended to capture that nuance?

                    Similarly, IETF
  working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input.
  Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
  than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
  process as any other proposal.

My understanding of the CFRG relationship, though, is that it does carry more weight?

Nits:

1. “Key Individuals Roles” —> “Key Individuals’ Roles”

2.
  Most Working Groups (WGs) focus their efforts on one or more
  documents that capture its work results.

"its work results" --> “Their work results”

3.
  This includes the IETF trademarks, or copyright licenses

“Or” should be “and”
2022-03-09
05 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2022-03-09
05 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
A minor note, but IMO an important one:

The document says it is about the production of "IETF standards", which I believe is …
[Ballot discuss]
A minor note, but IMO an important one:

The document says it is about the production of "IETF standards", which I believe is a term being used colloquially. I would like the Introduction to be a bit more clear about whether the scope of this is

(1) Production of Standards Track documents;

(2) Production of IETF stream documents; or

(3) Production of RFCs

If (1) or (2), the text about the IRTF stream in (3.7) is out of scope. If the answer is (3), there ought to be an ISE section and a sentence about the IAB stream.

Regardless of which, as this is an introductory document, the introduction would usefully help to disambiguate those concepts.
2022-03-09
05 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
(2.3) As AD-sponsored documents are in the IETF stream, it would be good to note that this mechanism exists and that it bypasses …
[Ballot comment]
(2.3) As AD-sponsored documents are in the IETF stream, it would be good to note that this mechanism exists and that it bypasses the Working Group role in the process.
2022-03-09
05 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2022-03-08
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot discuss]
This doc has a DOWNREF to Informational draft-iab-rfcedp-rfced-model,
which I failed to include in the Last Call message.
2022-03-08
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to Discuss from Yes
2022-03-08
05 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.2.  Emphasize the role of chair is a facilitator:

OLD
  Each Working Group is headed by a Chair who has …
[Ballot comment]
** Section 2.2.  Emphasize the role of chair is a facilitator:

OLD
  Each Working Group is headed by a Chair who has the responsibility
  for directing the group's activities

NEW
Each Working Group is managed by a Chair who has the responsibility for facilitating the group's activities

** Section 2.2.  Typo. s/responsibilites/responsibilities/

** Section 2.3.  Editorial symmetry with prior section and expand the roles of the AD.

OLD
The Area Director (AD) assigned as the Reponsible Area Director for a
Working Group will review documents after the Working Group has
approved them following a last call. 

NEW
Each Working Group is assigned a responsible Area Director (AD).  The AD can assist the WG chair in assessing consensus and executing process.  The AD will also review documents after the WG has conducted a WG last call and requested publication; and will bring these documents to the IESG for approval.

** Section 3.  Should directorates and their associate reviews be defined?

** Section 3.2.  Append the following text to the first paragraph to recognize that there are different types of WGs:

OLD
Working Groups typically have a narrow focus
and a lifetime bounded by completion of specific tasks as defined in
their charter and milestones.

NEW
Working Groups typically have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by completion of specific tasks as defined in their charter and milestones. Some Working Groups are long-lived intended to conduct ongoing maintenance on IETF protocol(s).  There are also (dispatch) Working Groups whose role is to assess where new work in the IETF should be done, and they do not directly produce standards.

** Section 3.3

OLD
  The IESG is
  responsible for the actions associated with the progression of
  documents along the "standards track", including the initial approval
  of new Working Groups and the final approval of documents. 

NEW
The IESG is responsible for the actions associated with the progression of documents in the “IETF stream”, including the initial approval of new Working Groups, any subsequent rechartering, and the final approval of documents. 

** Section 3.7

OLD
... shorter-term issues of engineering and standards making.

NEW
… shorter-term issues of engineering, operations, and specification of standards.

** Section 3.7.
  RGs also sometimes
  develop experimental protocols or technologies, some of which may be
  suitable for possible standardization in IETF.

No issues with the above.  Should we account for the definition or maturation of (cryptographic) algorithms?

** Section 3.7
Similarly, IETF
working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input.
Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
process as any other proposal.

I agree with John on acknowledging that the IRTF also provides specialized expertise to the IETF which it couldn’t get internally (e.g., Crypto Panel).  We have collectively operated that this specialized review does have special standing because it’s not expertise in the IETF community.  Also, certain IRTF work (e.g., crypto documents from the CFRG) are also often given special standing because of the uncommon way they were developed (through an open, peer reviewed process).
2022-03-08
05 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating …
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating model accurately, if I understand correctly (and I may not!) there’s some bleedover between at least CFRG and standards-making, such that the IETF relies on CFRG for (mumble magic crypto smoke mumble), and so the relationship isn't as cut-and-dried as the section makes it sound.

Is this text intended to capture that nuance?

                    Similarly, IETF
  working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input.
  Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
  than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
  process as any other proposal.

My understanding of the CFRG relationship, though, is that it does carry more weight?

Nits:

1. “Key Individuals Roles” —> “Key Individuals’ Roles”

2.
  Most Working Groups (WGs) focus their efforts on one or more
  documents that capture its work results.

"its work results" --> “Their work results”

3.
  This includes the IETF trademarks, or copyright licenses

“Or” should be “and”
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating …
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the section states the usual operating mode accurately, if I understand correctly (and I may not!) there’s some bleedover between at least CFRG and standards-making, such that the IETF relies on CFRG for (mumble magic crypto smoke mumble), and so the relationship isn't as cut-and-dried as the section makes it sound.

Is this text intended to capture that nuance?

                    Similarly, IETF
  working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input.
  Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
  than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
  process as any other proposal.

My understanding of the CFRG relationship, though, is that it does carry more weight?

Nits:

1. “Key Individuals Roles” —> “Key Individuals’ Roles”

2.
  Most Working Groups (WGs) focus their efforts on one or more
  documents that capture its work results.

"its work results" --> “Their work results”

3.
  This includes the IETF trademarks, or copyright licenses

“Or” should be “and”
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this document. I'd like to discuss what it says about ISOC's role. In §3.11 regarding ISOC, we have …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this document. I'd like to discuss what it says about ISOC's role. In §3.11 regarding ISOC, we have

  Internet standardization is an organized activity of the Internet
  Society (ISOC), with the Board of Trustees being responsible for
  ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process
  [ISOCIETF].

Looking at ISOCIETF, I don’t see this in plain language anywhere. The strings “rules” and “ratify” don’t appear, and “procedure” doesn’t appear anywhere relevant. The primary relevant section is §4, “ISOC's Role in the IETF Standards Process”, which lists several specifics in the first paragraph:

  ISOC plays a small role in the IETF standards process.  In
  particular, ISOC assists the standards process by appointing the IETF
  NomCom chair and by confirming IAB candidates who are put forward by
  the IETF NomCom, as described in [RFC8713], and by acting as the last
  resort in the appeals process, as described in [RFC2026].

There are also indirect things mentioned later (liaisons, indirect support programs). But none of these things seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.”

We also have, in §6 of ISOCIETF, some words about the IETF Trust, ending in

      One of the IETF
  Trust's trustees is appointed by the ISOC's Board of Trustees.

This, again, doesn’t seem to rise to the level of “ratifying the procedures and rules of the Internet standards process.”
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the sections states the usual operating …
[Ballot comment]
I have one additional comment, and a few nits.

Regarding the IRTF (§3.7), while I agree that the sections states the usual operating mode accurately, if I understand correctly (and I may not!) there’s some bleedover between at least CFRG and standards-making, such that the IETF relies on CFRG for (mumble magic crypto smoke mumble), and so the relationship isn't as cut-and-dried as the section makes it sound.

Is this text intended to capture that nuance?

                    Similarly, IETF
  working groups sometimes ask RGs for advice or other input.
  Contributions from RGs, however, carry no more weight in the IETF
  than other community input, and go through the same standards setting
  process as any other proposal.

My understanding of the CFRG relationship, though, is that it does carry more weight?

Nits:

1. “Key Individuals Roles” —> “Key Individuals’ Roles”

2.
  Most Working Groups (WGs) focus their efforts on one or more
  documents that capture its work results.

"its work results" --> “Their work results”

3.
  This includes the IETF trademarks, or copyright licenses

“Or” should be “and”
2022-03-08
05 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-03-08
05 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
(1) "Internet Engineering Task Force" should replace the "???" in the header (rfc7841).


(2) The reference to rfc2028 is not used …
[Ballot comment]
(1) "Internet Engineering Task Force" should replace the "???" in the header (rfc7841).


(2) The reference to rfc2028 is not used anywhere.  If used, it should be Informative because rfc2028 is being declared Obsolete.


(3) There is some inconsistency in how the references are treated.  Keep in mind that the reference type doesn't depend on the document's status but the kind of information relative to the current draft.

  https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/


(3a) The reference to the IAB Charter is listed as Normative while the reference to the IESG Charter is Informative -- the text leading to them is similar and used to point to additional information:

  §3.3: Other matters concerning its organization and operation are
  described in the IESG charter [IESG].

  §3.4: Other matters concerning the IAB's organization and operation
  are described in the IAB charter [IAB].

In this case, both references should be treated the same.  IMO, both can be Informative.


(3b) §3.7: "Details of the organization and operation of the IRTF, the ISRG, and its RGs may be found in [IRTF], [IABIRTF], [IRTFPRIMER], and [IRTFCHAIR]."

This case is similar to the one above: the references point to additional information.  IRTF is listed as Normative and the others as Informative.  All can be Informative.
 

(3c) §3.8: "The principles for the copyright licenses are described in [IPRRIGHTS1] and [COPYRIGHT]..."

IPRRIGHTS1 and IPRRIGHTS2 are both listed as Normative, while COPYRIGHT is Informative.  All 3 can be Informative.


(3d) Other similar references used to point at more information are also listed as Normative and should be Informative -- for example, IANADOCS, MEETINGS, NOMCOM, and RFCEDMODEL.
2022-03-08
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2022-03-07
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-03-07
05 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-rsalz-2028bis-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-rsalz-2028bis-05, 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
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2022-03-07
05 Ted Lemon Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Ted Lemon. Sent review to list.
2022-03-07
05 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

There are some other bodies that folks working in IETF standardization might be involved in that I was surprised …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

There are some other bodies that folks working in IETF standardization might be involved in that I was surprised are not mentioned.

The main one that I thought might be worth mentioning are the directorates, since someone new to IETF is likely to get directorate reviews.

Separately, I was wondering whether there should be any mention of EMODIR, or the Ombudsteam?

Regards,
Rob
2022-03-07
05 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-03-07
05 Lars Eggert IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2022-03-07
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2022-03-06
05 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued
2022-03-06
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2022-03-06
05 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2022-03-06
05 Lars Eggert Ballot writeup was changed
2022-03-04
05 David Black Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: David Black. Sent review to list.
2022-02-28
05 Sasha Vainshtein Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein.
2022-02-24
05 Mehmet Ersue Closed request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS with state 'Overtaken by Events': Review done by Dan Romascanu. See mail in YANGDoctors maillist: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/F5ZYRjEk9_z4PzlsHdVb8tnjtC0/
2022-02-18
05 Vijay Gurbani Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. Sent review to list.
2022-02-12
05 John Levine Request for Last Call review by I18NDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: John Levine. Sent review to list.
2022-02-12
05 Pete Resnick Request for Last Call review by I18NDIR is assigned to John Levine
2022-02-12
05 Pete Resnick Request for Last Call review by I18NDIR is assigned to John Levine
2022-02-10
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2022-02-10
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2022-02-10
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2022-02-10
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2022-02-09
05 Carlos Bernardos Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Hinden
2022-02-09
05 Carlos Bernardos Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Hinden
2022-02-09
05 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon
2022-02-09
05 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon
2022-02-09
05 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Withdrawn': Review is already assigned for this document.
2022-02-09
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein
2022-02-09
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein
2022-02-09
05 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2022-02-09
05 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2022-02-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2022-02-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by I18NDIR
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by ARTART
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by TSVART
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by INTDIR
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by GENART
2022-02-09
05 Lars Eggert Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2022-02-08
05 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Darrel Miller
2022-02-08
05 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Darrel Miller
2022-02-07
05 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-03-10
2022-02-07
05 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-02-07
05 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-rsalz-2028bis@ietf.org, lars@eggert.org
Reply-To: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-03-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-rsalz-2028bis@ietf.org, lars@eggert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-rsalz-2028bis-05.txt> (Entities Involved in the IETF Standards Process) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Entities Involved in the IETF Standards Process'
  <draft-rsalz-2028bis-05.txt> as Best Current Practice

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-03-07. 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


  This document describes the individuals and organizations involved in
  the IETF standards process, as described in IETF BCP 9.  It includes
  brief descriptions of the entities involved, and the role they play
  in the standards process.  This document obsoletes RFC 2028.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rsalz-2028bis/



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




2022-02-07
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert Last call was requested
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert Last call announcement was generated
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert Ballot approval text was generated
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert Ballot writeup was generated
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert Oops
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD Evaluation
2022-02-07
05 Lars Eggert IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from AD is watching
2022-02-07
05 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-05.txt
2022-02-07
05 (System) New version approved
2022-02-07
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2022-02-07
05 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2022-02-02
04 (System) Changed action holders to Lars Eggert (IESG state changed)
2022-02-02
04 Lars Eggert IESG process started in state AD is watching
2022-02-02
04 Lars Eggert Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-02-02
04 Lars Eggert Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2022-02-02
04 Lars Eggert Stream changed to IETF from None
2022-02-02
04 Lars Eggert Shepherding AD changed to Lars Eggert
2022-01-24
04 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-04.txt
2022-01-24
04 (System) New version approved
2022-01-24
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2022-01-24
04 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2021-11-18
03 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-03.txt
2021-11-18
03 (System) New version approved
2021-11-18
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2021-11-18
03 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2021-11-07
02 Kirsty Paine Added to session: IETF-112: gendispatch  Mon-1600
2021-11-06
02 Eliot Lear Added to session: IETF-112: rfcefdp  Wed-1430
2021-10-04
02 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-02.txt
2021-10-04
02 (System) New version approved
2021-10-04
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2021-10-04
02 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2021-09-14
01 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-01.txt
2021-09-14
01 (System) New version approved
2021-09-14
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2021-09-14
01 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision
2021-09-03
00 Rich Salz New version available: draft-rsalz-2028bis-00.txt
2021-09-03
00 (System) New version approved
2021-09-03
00 Rich Salz Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
2021-09-03
00 Rich Salz Uploaded new revision