Subject: [PMOL] FW: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with COMMENT)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:16:11 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jari Arkko
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:00 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Jari Arkko's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with COMMENT)

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08: No Objection

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a very good idea to publish an RFC for defining the task of a
directorate. However, I do want to make a few suggestions:

1. The name "Entity" is a bit odd. The established IETF terminology is
"directorate"

2. I would not make the directorate a formal requirement or mandatory
part of the process. I think it is better cast as a review organization
that can help the working group, the IETF, and the IESG in making the
right decisions.