From nobody Wed Feb 24 10:56:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBDD1A92F8; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljvhnys2_ihP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85D81A6F39; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l127so58660131iof.3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=BVdZSFv5rjqXBSxLNdehSJnQKzcqOKAGcpePYqW3e2w=; b=pCaQjqq2AmN1LhE5SC8ltnKY5b2su9k7kqG+H2OSoXaqFQEnsCpCBtWTFRDutDrVYA rURLi/qxJ/kkinshVHxbNtsfvvcInr1WJ/aOVm33gKP+a4bPZG0XST2ZGYxNXscW8osv YbMvJJvyxxt+O9NWggQtqnzjKYo/U9XOlBOaFWllhrxWwq4sdOffhf8WI7b88fl6Hi9j iNfwmQT8JW9DRxEquiMwtqV9BoKK4/y2aLgKgpgkVw94rU7sq9SEW6IIUwAGghPSRtFD bdAgDOkzgIEHQnF4KJsX5ThRBnzwBmXQbKwMZJhdTHAznoKBrtGei2rbc8TdT9BT9b4v +vtg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=BVdZSFv5rjqXBSxLNdehSJnQKzcqOKAGcpePYqW3e2w=; b=V0jdRsPGXuutTLcfhza2vVXXXbZfmdPcWjHLanJMDfN2AWCPjrzgCCyxdjQDzgHIpc 7aTNsK87jgySAX7MPqCPV0ssa8+vl/vO5LRHDvB9anpGz7Ns3YKbkF30H6ibHGAsfbZY 4zDCW3rVo1jSquHkCC13HgbfZE/hQb1UqGeBP5M6YaIMfw5ghmOFVfTpQ5hfeVGxq54G EF7sIj/QMcpYnD0UogaSoaHwqtGRcH1m5F3ivznWC/zuIaGnj1jJtugin9ELvbrL8bD2 ta/dTbMoFCZ8RCHfBydTGnfKGpeD0gQezsHvRZhC+7Ixy1Fk8qwDZfWjzH5I3yQoGpRP FCoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSgVJw3fdVSwzNB3xihoJGvxONXkInKhGE0NoXpL/ZDISlZKHBlGvhaXFYe5/eqAyaTR6NpVPf/WLiOEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.34 with SMTP id gb2mr18289000igd.13.1456340179061; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.184.195 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:18 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b8CZBuVDv8ZsxtYTxY_wBPHmx9w Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, IAB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:56:22 -0000 The main substantive changes are the fourth board appointment and this paragraph: If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this document, without requiring further modification to this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's reasonable not to have to rev this document for that. But 3677bis is now basically saying that BCP 77 is now obsolete, that this version is the last one and is indeed documenting current practice, and that future changes will be made by IAB decision and not by revision of BCP 77. Is that the intent? If so, maybe it would be better now to simply make BCP 77 obsolete and shift the whole thing into an IAB statement at this point. Barry From nobody Wed Feb 24 11:06:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41B71A887E; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZZENUUfrSg1; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 263F31B29A3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id ho8so17945679pac.2; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9vT7bR+PCDtkKLBcdh/3LZ07habHZxEdgKcoXR21HrU=; b=QREWSbE/eW9WTWMKKCgBpFBQr8VTwuDwBiPWhmnX/iYJMFdvr/ETis/IE8+JYfq8yD pAl9mffha884s5ch/CnKeSL8R0995kvSIXs4s8YEHhFHSmCcn+utHAV5yniG2F+kK1nb OGQFfQPiobZqSxDfZ4VIy+SM+88xGW8PdjZLBiPML19mdkJSLE4SA1wj2Bia26OOmc12 cV+bWe0JXtB4sMQxNyD/ihhLugEPZTCVkQBQNKhd2N8ctQXD/ZqEa/09eJ6fQzEOC611 LmHANJX7t+gAXu8adYXlYGALFwFIcMPnAbNTxkGsR+rU9YA2rKM9ZWsb9tOcvLV/PcyP yZ8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9vT7bR+PCDtkKLBcdh/3LZ07habHZxEdgKcoXR21HrU=; b=X+S5a+R1H+ohhJqLXTPEdRnlxgsUp146qChSa1Tkxs4YxSAj6P87IW1jufqK0K8uAQ DRyPW92buwJpgztNd4BridxaxlNkI3k5HPGreLDeiHULL2FyR+jk99uQ/q6q3ctm2YuS mUSJCoofv4ZQeYUZDzBpCja6Qo7X/DTtq7zY4XOk76S8Y8iaN+8YJ2TYJBh2R9oA8aPW gpjxyfDVSUoTKUvLiJ5rHiRoogKpzwksommGclKOA1mJUlCnl5dP8iE6NdUM4Oy7YILC OQDaJtrWF2R5wctany/4U6gX5aKIWROOZGZHaYpyZqujRMXcgT5A9S7XgS+6TSCsSoKI miug== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQia/blYVnKAmYww2deVi4yGkxuQxOWs4XZpcQe1qDSBvKhU6kl5fe/Pnu1w6sfGg== X-Received: by 10.66.147.74 with SMTP id ti10mr57578201pab.128.1456340790837; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7256:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7256:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d8sm6777657pas.14.2016.02.24.11.06.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:06:29 -0800 (PST) To: Barry Leiba , architecture-discuss@ietf.org, IAB References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:06:33 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:06:32 -0000 On 25/02/2016 07:56, Barry Leiba wrote: > The main substantive changes are the fourth board appointment and this > paragraph: > > If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB > appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will > make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this > document, without requiring further modification to this document. > Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. > > While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely > left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable > modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds > a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just > add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's > reasonable not to have to rev this document for that. Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit to updating the rules accordingly? Brian > > But 3677bis is now basically saying that BCP 77 is now obsolete, that > this version is the last one and is indeed documenting current > practice, and that future changes will be made by IAB decision and not > by revision of BCP 77. > > Is that the intent? If so, maybe it would be better now to simply > make BCP 77 obsolete and shift the whole thing into an IAB statement > at this point. > > Barry > > From nobody Wed Feb 24 14:29:22 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E67D1A00A3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:29:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZtKnZeKRXTt; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F007F1A00C6; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:29:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1410; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456352950; x=1457562550; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=oDBjsAhXBP2pgk4LIud+2vAkQ97/QsAU4mFUc5ntp5I=; b=IsJ4mrc0HaEe/jS+MCO6TyDakuPpQEy1R6lpzIIaU7sKW0QCUROUMVqh 3pq/bEDcsnL7YGZtqODIsGOJrCssCzL8bgRCD5NowlVWb4MBisFpzVL4A hbU5I5CbJ0FSV1sl6ODFzsoTYB37UkB2ESYANyX9hf6otNy8jjdy5b5RF 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AQAgANLs5W/5RdJa1egzqBPwa4VIITA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZoYOAhyBIjgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEIBAQQdBhFFEAIBCBIIAh8HAgICHxEVAg4?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAENBYgKAxKvHIoQDYRDAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFXuFF4Fsgk6CO?= =?us-ascii?q?oF5gwIrgQ8BBJcHAYtrgXOBXoREiFKHBYdDAR4BAUKCMIE0agGGYn0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,495,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="242319075" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Feb 2016 22:29:10 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1OMTAVc000761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:29:10 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:29:09 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:29:09 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Brian E Carpenter , Barry Leiba , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" , IAB Thread-Topic: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) Thread-Index: AQHRbzaOs4u9An9ut02Cw3ysLZKTcZ87tlwA Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:29:09 +0000 Message-ID: <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.160109 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.203.24] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <154852FCAB3C5C419AE660C04A276E03@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:29:20 -0000 T24gMi8yNC8xNiwgMTI6MDYgUE0sICJBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUtZGlzY3VzcyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2Yg QnJpYW4gRSBDYXJwZW50ZXIiIDxhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUtZGlzY3Vzcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn IG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBicmlhbi5lLmNhcnBlbnRlckBnbWFpbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQoNCg0K Pj4gDQo+PiBXaGlsZSB0aGlzIGlzIGNlcnRhaW5seSBleHBlZGllbnQsIGl0J3MgcXVpdGUgb3Bl bi1lbmRlZCwgZW50aXJlbHkNCj4+IGxlZnQgdXAgdG8gdGhlIGp1ZGdtZW50IG9mIHRoZSBzaXR0 aW5nIElBQiBhYm91dCB3aGF0ICJyZWFzb25hYmxlDQo+PiBtb2RpZmljYXRpb25zIiBtaWdodCBt ZWFuLiAgQ2VydGFpbmx5LCB3aXRoIGEgYnktbGF3IGNoYW5nZSB0aGF0IGFkZHMNCj4+IGEgYm9h cmQgYXBwb2ludG1lbnQsIG1vc3QgYW55b25lIHdvdWxkIGNvbnNpZGVyIGl0IHJlYXNvbmFibGUg dG8ganVzdA0KPj4gYWRkIHRoYXQgYXBwb2ludG1lbnQgd2l0aCB0aGUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgcGVy aW9kaWNpdHksIGFuZCBpdCdzDQo+PiByZWFzb25hYmxlIG5vdCB0byBoYXZlIHRvIHJldiB0aGlz IGRvY3VtZW50IGZvciB0aGF0Lg0KPg0KPlllcywgYnV0IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBuZWVkcyB0byBi ZSBjaXJjdW1zY3JpYmVkLiBXb3VsZG4ndCBpdCBiZSBiZXR0ZXINCj50byByZXF1aXJlIHRoYXQg QkNQIDc3IGlzIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlbHkgdXBkYXRlZCB3aXRoaW4gMTIgbW9udGhzIGluDQo+c3Vj aCBhIGNhc2UsIGkuZS4gdHJ1c3QgdGhlIElBQiB0byBkbyB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdGhpbmcgYnV0IGFs c28gY29tbWl0DQo+dG8gdXBkYXRpbmcgdGhlIHJ1bGVzIGFjY29yZGluZ2x5Pw0KDQpJIGd1ZXNz IEknbSBvayB3aXRoIHRoYXQuIFdlIGNvdWxkIGFsc28gdHJ1c3QgdGhlIElBQiB0byBrbm93IHRo ZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gYSBzdWJzdGFudGl2ZSBjaGFuZ2UgYW5kIGEgbWlub3Igb25l Lg0KDQpBbnl3YXksIHBsZWFzZSBwcm9wb3NlIHRleHQuDQoNCi0tIA0KSm9lIEhpbGRlYnJhbmQN Cg== From nobody Wed Feb 24 14:37:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2F11A0389; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1ndEJqz03Eb; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408D91A0382; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y8so1393570igp.1; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=Jf0M7N9C02X/akpSu6THhJrSZXlEthiBu/zET0Z/9eM=; b=WINFrhuuZHSo9oDHs5IZzNJAdHWJSc15hH6+54an3AK3a7xVrk2R9I5f9NAr9C7UQC uX8u9ReBvNNDV7w4tkBHxIQgeyolN/w0amazpLKnWYkFD4MfnN9fc5nUO7MPIY5esKj6 CJheYgjLVY0qkHjQsR6RWD8JW7DZOOoa9jrEcs2DlRKlx8sGRDYcLd1MXQk7VAfXqtRh dflTimVfoy1soqvQYKlvx1RjcmMq4mK6weAv/MP+a9RsYSgOHhJRHnEDnnepnX7x9pWw vLJ32q50ZqqDbLXfDNcS4Mf7g6Hbee2A+/Salwb3a8/jKPpEg6WUJFNMqCQcXki4BqvA Hedg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Jf0M7N9C02X/akpSu6THhJrSZXlEthiBu/zET0Z/9eM=; b=W+G4hQl6ayz/IsdXl19fEm++cvdyJSCIbvNQjaduEl89tHlfLdBbhmyIfdVsg8idmb iJu+2z5T2IvUiCjq5niQmyoqm++hufVbiXmn+1guTrA7Y1Fp18rROVt+SRPfX/ozoGA+ cdr23OhaCxA55yfIf4fYhmv+fh3rzSX0Eu1abTfskJNXNG9F5ILwKLmeOnvzyCn4Asth jgDOy4TSkIfiLqM/r2lV6MYOo379MLR1fVBBtsJqXMlO2+oP0vlgLCKRWSXihi5YXn1V nyTeYMtPLFrPq8TmMrs9qFcOe2KRpqYqz1RG0hC5baoVhm2CsYV60BiU+ZuqQtRHmj41 HBBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORHs+mEahGgUXLKQtOxxcbk1qt36F0XqF9ZGvd1iM2IjMIAgN9ZdCnSwObZBWfUV3kosn5g1MaXl6O9Ww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.93.102 with SMTP id ct6mr204887igb.54.1456353467662; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.156.5 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:47 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BASj-4_8EtVjKwsZch136xnUzfM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: IAB , IETF discussion list , Brian E Carpenter , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:37:49 -0000 Barry said... >>> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely >>> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable >>> modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds >>> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just >>> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's >>> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that. Brian said... >>Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better >>to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in >>such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit >>to updating the rules accordingly? Joe said... > I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the > difference between a substantive change and a minor one. Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to. That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB statement. [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point; it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's being changed in how we document this process.] Barry From nobody Wed Feb 24 18:59:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86321B2DE3; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDfmfFyp4BwC; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB8B1B2DBA; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id q63so24215528pfb.0; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EPgbScdT0OmcFiLgTXtRjxtbu1ZqRcb7ifkxmJfE1s4=; b=lf+nHG4d6zVoo0KZ0orSEnRRiDPHYGcfQUyTXQeU0bF0ZBEiXvwWKj0wBQ51tFM4Ok 3hTsqDCmjSMFOhgtmAVG6YEzTDexZPURDYR66MAn70tT4WMgGewmpRX6tgDjxLCyVm62 Haf9AoZEQd+9qn3ZHip2MXp/2Er2Ni96ClJ7j2K1wMsqs3emM8VDla+qSVp6po8NgICx 2lwajCcpAAkueBhs7p9IAgc+dwu5q5Wsc6Qxo7hwucehA+Y4cSdsRJP/tW7TAe+G4OBW JQur0pgKawXPNoxtxDJV+elBdKfAxmyvkfkXCU+XiBEhG1n9kSSvpA9wWDC11hT9Rcia g5yQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EPgbScdT0OmcFiLgTXtRjxtbu1ZqRcb7ifkxmJfE1s4=; b=TbyGDa2upE+SgDdw+06B1hLMw3aM83ziCQVo5oBVfj4uRk2/B2hGLoimiECTEVTyJk Rmh5O2DS19hKmCCRB18a6HGmk8I1ESumzfkjVOpZOkeNRH6CjWk0fJkKNkpR+CLfnIMR VuoCGkWOdP2FNKo0v5w+dTWz+s/SApEjZxzIVrFB10vJP795tvQn7hiA1IlhU/mrUnHo Lnl6+T4inTPGC+zWb97W5pXOUKFUWgrQf0KmiqMAxWzKlQq0QbWL9kGxf9ScT0UeBim2 929rHS79mvQDi0EJjV00ATVphpU6x7dQMUZ4hsOQnw0XI7Uel9Ej9y8xgdlB7w9jZZwM zGeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORctZh/ByrQ0eRF4GCMRPFyD4Wg9xG+9qL1b7QiZSR543XGPrggAt1YEnSRT/qe2w== X-Received: by 10.98.31.21 with SMTP id f21mr58203027pff.134.1456369192840; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.156.16] ([202.180.67.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n28sm7942207pfa.45.2016.02.24.18.59.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:59:51 -0800 (PST) To: Barry Leiba , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:59:55 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: IAB , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:59:54 -0000 On 25/02/2016 11:37, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry said... >>>> While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely >>>> left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable >>>> modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds >>>> a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just >>>> add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's >>>> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that. > > Brian said... >>> Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better >>> to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in >>> such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit >>> to updating the rules accordingly? > > Joe said... >> I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the >> difference between a substantive change and a minor one. Absolutely. I don't distrust the IAB at all, but if we're going to have a BCP at all, it needs to be done right. > > Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to > appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make > absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to. > That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and > make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the > process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB > statement. > > [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point; > it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's > being changed in how we document this process.] I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB." Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if the minimalist version attracts interest. Brian From nobody Thu Feb 25 07:56:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F40D1B2B63; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:56:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KjaIcYdizGx; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CB61B2B5A; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 07:56:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2436; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456415796; x=1457625396; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LTF0MdvRRPabADBZsG6572Tn4NS0JmprfZEg6ds4TEc=; b=aw7L8M/b5piasmuAHH7kAivpbExHXv6Xa4Rf5nCs+ooBnnZZOaL96ipg eQyn/0aBFTWykb1OBT5qpo3X4+dtIHHZUNEPILzr514z4TWltFTldJv49 hgQmVv5aEQ3quXyR92WoIY3yjpbePe2I6jqC/G9l4shv86XJOtLsEOC6k A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AlAgBUI89W/5RdJa1eDoMsUm0GuCOCE?= =?us-ascii?q?wENgWYhhWwegSU4FAEBAQEBAQFkJ4RCAQEEHQYRRRIBCBIGAgIfBwIEMBUCEAQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQWIHw6vP450AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQR7hReBbAiCRoQQgyUrg?= =?us-ascii?q?Q8FknOEFQGFV4gHgV6ERIhShXKIVgEeAQFCggMZFHk7aoZePH4BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,498,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="76768995" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Feb 2016 15:56:35 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1PFuZT9001021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:56:35 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:56:35 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:56:35 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: "Bradner, Scott" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" , "iab@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [IAB] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) Thread-Index: AQHRb+UauZFXOkmyaU2DzQecv+avIg== Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:56:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.160109 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.203.24] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0F9993EED0F4504CA8A331CFEE905288@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [arch-d] [IAB] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:56:38 -0000 V2lsbCBkby4NCg0KLS0gDQpKb2UgSGlsZGVicmFuZA0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KT24gMi8yNS8xNiwg NToyNyBBTSwgIklBQiBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgQnJhZG5lciwgU2NvdHQiIDxpYWItYm91bmNlc0Bp YWIub3JnIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBzb2JAaGFydmFyZC5lZHU+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+cmUgc2VjdGlv biAzLjUgbWlkLXRlcm0gdmFjYW5jaWVzDQo+DQo+cGxlYXNlIGhvbGQgb2ZmIG9uIHRoaXMgcGFy dGljdWxhciBzZWN0aW9uIGZvciBhIGJpdCAtIEkgYW0gaW4gdGhlIG1pZGRsZSBvZiBwcm9wb3Np bmcgc29tZSBjaGFuZ2VzIA0KPnRvIHRoZSBJU09DIGJ5bGF3cyAtIG1vc3RseSB0byBjbGVhciB1 cCBzb21lIGNvbmZ1c2lvbnMgLSBhbmQgb25lIG9mIHRoZXNlIGNoYW5nZXMgY29uY2VybnMgSUVU RiB2YWNhbmN5IGFwcG9pbnRtZW50cw0KPg0KPnRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGJ5bGF3cyBkbyBub3QgbGlt aXQgd2hlbiB0aGUgSUVURiBjYW4gYXBwb2ludCBzb21lb25lIHRvIGZpbGwgYSB2YWNhbmN5IGJ1 dCBkbyBsaW1pdCB3aGVuIHN1Y2ggYW4NCj5hcHBvaW50bWVudCBjYW4gdGFrZSBvZmZpY2UgdG8g dGhlIHN0YXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBJU09DIG1pZCB5ZWFyIG1lZXRpbmcsIHdoZW4gYWxsIG5ldyB0cnVz dGVlcyB0YWtlIG9mZmljZSAtIHdoaWNoIG1pZ2h0DQo+YmUgYSBiaXQgZnJ1c3RyYXRpbmcgdG8g dGhlIGFwcG9pbnRlZQ0KPg0KPkkgYW0gcHJvcG9zaW5nIGEgYnlsYXdzIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGF0IHdp bGwgcHV0IHRoZSBJRVRGIGFwcG9pbnRtZW50IHQgZmlsbCBhIHZhY2FuY3kgdG8gYmUgdGhlIHNh bWUNCj5hcyBpdCBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIGNoYXB0ZXJzICYgb3JnIG1lbWJlcnMgLSB3aXRoIHVudGls IHRoZSBuZXh0IGFwcG9pbnRtZW50IGN5Y2xlICh0byBkbyBvdGhlcndpc2UNCj5wcm92aWRlZCB1 bmVxdWFsIHRyZWF0bWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIElFVEYpDQo+DQo+aW4gYW55IGNhc2Ugc29tZSBjaGFu Z2UgaXMgbmVlZGVkIHRvIGNsYXJpZnkgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIHNpdHVhdGlvbg0KPg0KPlNjb3R0 DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGZWIgMjQsIDIwMTYsIGF0IDEyOjU5IFBNLCBJQUIgRXhlY3V0aXZlIEFkbWlu aXN0cmF0aXZlIE1hbmFnZXIgPGV4ZWNkQGlhYi5vcmc+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGlzIGlz IGFuIGFubm91bmNlbWVudCBvZiBhbiBJRVRGLXdpZGUgQ2FsbCBmb3IgQ29tbWVudCBvbg0KPj4g ZHJhZnQtaWFiLXJmYzM2NzdiaXMtMDAuDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBiZWluZyBj b25zaWRlcmVkIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBhcyBhIEJlc3QgQ3VycmVudCANCj4+IFByYWN0aWNl IFJGQyB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIElBQiBzdHJlYW0sIGFuZCBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIGluc3BlY3Rp b24gDQo+PiBoZXJlOiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pYWIt cmZjMzY3N2Jpcy8NCj4+IA0KPj4gVGhlIENhbGwgZm9yIENvbW1lbnQgd2lsbCBsYXN0IHVudGls IDIwMTYtMDMtMjMuIFBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvDQo+PiBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUtZGlz Y3Vzc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBhbmQgaWFiQGlhYi5vcmcuDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPj4gQWJzdHJhY3QNCj4+ IA0KPj4gICBUaGlzIG1lbW8sIHdoaWNoIG9ic29sZXRlcyBSRkMzNjc3LCBvdXRsaW5lcyB0aGUg cHJvY2VzcyBieSB3aGljaCB0aGUNCj4+ICAgSUVURiBtYWtlcyBhIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBvZiBhbiBJ bnRlcm5ldCBTb2NpZXR5IChJU09DKSBCb2FyZCBvZg0KPj4gICBUcnVzdGVlcyBhcHBvaW50bWVu dC4NCj4+IA0KPg0K From nobody Thu Feb 25 08:55:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3871A8733; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:27:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mn69kKypCK_x; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0078.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B89931A8734; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 04:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from DM2PR07MB397.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.15) by DM2PR07MB400.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.409.15; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:27:11 +0000 Received: from DM2PR07MB397.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.31]) by DM2PR07MB397.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.31]) with mapi id 15.01.0409.024; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:27:12 +0000 From: "Bradner, Scott" To: "ietf@ietf.org" , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" , "iab@iab.org" Thread-Topic: Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) Thread-Index: AQHRb8fZQhjHLA75iUyxvgBRJogcOw== Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:27:11 +0000 Message-ID: <6EC360A9-BE71-4EFF-A4DF-9D9F8CD0614F@harvard.edu> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=harvard.edu; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [128.103.229.199] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM2PR07MB400; 5:t6afBvUGfhTfzwoJUa6oi8EpZNKbZjsUuPBvwYFY9SjeEXjRdSbX3GNFbuXL3gOdHIDm22I/2OpB4gGotD1XiHMKEs7rfJzmdJ70loOfssLNoLcozuy1aNTqs7UdKWoTtwMu/37I21uj2AUwzvx+Fw==; 24:0eHetVYRfqAMAhbv8kLb6fhHZugRPdWOXuz6e6nPWVvSS8/67h7dRkKE+oC4y97FwdKZwk/l6Aouyzfd+uJLw8e2oz6PG5ap81Ce9oJbRaQ= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR07MB400; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b2f154e2-7c7c-48f2-3db6-08d33ddefcb5 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:DM2PR07MB400; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR07MB400; x-forefront-prvs: 08635C03D4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(87936001)(102836003)(3846002)(106116001)(50986999)(189998001)(54356999)(5001960100002)(76176999)(1096002)(66066001)(36756003)(83716003)(230783001)(5002640100001)(2201001)(90282001)(86362001)(5004730100002)(2906002)(586003)(5008740100001)(40100003)(6116002)(15975445007)(75432002)(1220700001)(92566002)(82746002)(2900100001)(5001770100001)(2950100001)(88552002)(4326007)(33656002)(89122001)(122556002)(10400500002)(2501003)(19580405001)(19580395003)(99286002)(217873001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR07MB400; H:DM2PR07MB397.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <50BD521B7D9F5C479892D864A53A58A5@namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: harvard.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Feb 2016 12:27:11.9426 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 6ffa22f4-4568-4105-ad43-2e3ad4726957 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR07MB400 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:55:01 -0800 Cc: IETF Announcement List Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:27:16 -0000 re section 3.5 mid-term vacancies please hold off on this particular section for a bit - I am in the middle o= f proposing some changes=20 to the ISOC bylaws - mostly to clear up some confusions - and one of these = changes concerns IETF vacancy appointments the current bylaws do not limit when the IETF can appoint someone to fill a= vacancy but do limit when such an appointment can take office to the start of the ISOC mid year meeting, when= all new trustees take office - which might be a bit frustrating to the appointee I am proposing a bylaws update that will put the IETF appointment t fill a = vacancy to be the same as it is for the chapters & org members - with until the next appointment c= ycle (to do otherwise provided unequal treatment for the IETF) in any case some change is needed to clarify the existing situation Scott > On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote: >=20 > This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on > draft-iab-rfc3677bis-00. >=20 > The document is being considered for publication as a Best Current=20 > Practice RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection=20 > here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc3677bis/ >=20 > The Call for Comment will last until 2016-03-23. Please send comments to > architecture-discuss@ietf.org and iab@iab.org. >=20 >=20 > Abstract >=20 > This memo, which obsoletes RFC3677, outlines the process by which the > IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of > Trustees appointment. >=20 From nobody Thu Feb 25 15:36:20 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CB81B37C9; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Q4zTzqnQNpN; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD97C1B37BC; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b67so53293688qgb.1; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=LzSNOwOHyJC+r2beYpW/VWgiK6GWpsBQY6AVFD63Xpc=; b=kkLo5di6y6KAzhscy/hLMUrb4yENefVIFLWbZO6MuonJdKvy8bahII47E+9982BRCS Rx2GoKCkA5VmpkiB6pPSJK1Efuda9G/3ZY0ndODuzW4aWbBqc5cf2GGdPCnI2apmP6ER D9rOseKCYntF5fKkXhDaZmGhgHqcnxAJHKdLkRiXLugHASrNxAe4WYz69gdv63t6CNBk Srn2Z9Ojt230+te/qvK+xS2seBDId+ckutTZpV8T1H/Wue9xi6TRNjjMv/BJyn0NY/B8 2oPJGMHv00Mcy3cWjBnJ1vErCgV10QkB71mpdW9q6mTiLmxgN5bHhwYIXAIpF1tlDPzq nxOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=LzSNOwOHyJC+r2beYpW/VWgiK6GWpsBQY6AVFD63Xpc=; b=NAPWOAVkJjAO+cZu6pR36MEXjsQ4rjP91UGjZ2NzMGM5PcBqnB90BtD+fVp3UqJ8p0 +qR7b2k/OS0/d12J7rWp1ZfdhxxcKyrMbwhl7V2Kp6HW+wH/w+A5BXSPFo/uKYwrGpWk 8A1mNgTbpW0Q+dYrZBOEKOJjaoRx0qZVLU2eDDhVieza1noFcQMTYORwFBb+pNhC8PDe 8u0ZU8/A5pPwZxagJjV70TZ3IUGGkmQOTwfh8eNbtEhCF0QsFizozannmOR2oGCP/D/R zEIA9h20zLE3ldLhym+IUMRhg7n6uT6NYQaQ3PDAEgbeV6zBCV6YBLGSIRPsw0K9+EGf uGkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTpaApQwRgXUPp+VwQmi5QNQ/vfhHLoT7pMsvy2XQjPWfr6L+UnHckmRUOJjGs38w== X-Received: by 10.140.94.50 with SMTP id f47mr60393803qge.0.1456443311931; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u102sm4225848qge.27.2016.02.25.15.35.10 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:11 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D8BF261E-2974-4894-A5BA-9976D9AEEE61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:06 -0800 Message-Id: <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> To: Brian Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:36:19 -0800 Cc: IETF , Bob Hinden , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" , IAB , Barry Leiba Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:35:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D8BF261E-2974-4894-A5BA-9976D9AEEE61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Brian, >>=20 >> [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this = point; >> it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's >> being changed in how we document this process.] >=20 > I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats > on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling > them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says > just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB." >=20 > Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if > the minimalist version attracts interest. >=20 I think it should remain an RFC in the current style. I think it=E2=80=99= s an important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documented = in an RFC. Further, the ISOC By-laws don=E2=80=99t change very often, from a = practical point of view we don=E2=80=99t need to be concerned this = document will need to be updated very often. The last ISOC by-laws = change that this update is dealing with took several years to go from = conception to adoption Bob --Apple-Mail=_D8BF261E-2974-4894-A5BA-9976D9AEEE61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWz4+rAAoJEK7rdBF357uooqYH/jyd19YEThuH2mkkA7/Nipxq tsjwT00RWGOI3JTRbZpC2XwVyEAfWfySQBPtI6yjiaW3E/um1DH1HMmBHd+IrAa9 SXMUYN9vHQj38LIkuFYeYz/CcItLhCW+/jaUffMwWRvLZx4zVVlliLPGJx1w6oui SPPdAqEZA28VbiwQBf2u/t/XHQWxqRLShKpAVok+WCkdeINS8VmSfUqS4L5cXctG NvhkwvpRCiTnFKOZvvf3yQ6CcwYy8duueJZAeIcORkqGUcdvV8xLx239/Aaereod Vpasf9l29D6nMsrp8fXQTUYYs2ka9ATCAWtgWfYAhHSeNmIBi0cXs4VUTbWQ/9M= =2EnT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D8BF261E-2974-4894-A5BA-9976D9AEEE61-- From nobody Sat Feb 27 11:49:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406F21AC39E; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jgrpf_JcY0H5; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 817C51ABD37; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id yy13so68853133pab.3; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NzcF0337DN53ZhZ9JqNSBcJQ1k3W+2FlVr9Ct1FOEqk=; b=TcsmzFpXr42Gqzf8OrPpt329DevUUXM588xfXR52rLL454sZOD2Nlh3L/XU3uU8udx WCRiw4eW8NUgu1gNTugilp20iPsCaINLSv8dfmlNO7ZvCQBEpv461wqvH55l9EA3yzEm dhoifz4gn54CqcQxir3CXYY0ycxo4rDz8NQ9opg44/H/OffK4EyAu8hK9+rMqPHz/apP qMJ5XLGqeXNeui62PtifAI1JHxn6biQEK9l0UaB5n/1x/y00xxkBxpPzdj97eue3Ba09 20t9OEK26s9Fo+NnojMSyNH7nVWgH+N1zXdMnP9RuDgXHwHuk9bKOubf6dgfqdw0LwQe gqHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NzcF0337DN53ZhZ9JqNSBcJQ1k3W+2FlVr9Ct1FOEqk=; b=eAD+vqc8Xl962o/gdjOuSmcue2ABX1OTr6lhChKnY4e/dfuaP8u7CZAUSVil1dCGWi Tfcux9hcT/9ApRDVk3Kj5DuKrO7oV+MTO0v4SbYFQn8RTm8KL3t9rB2o8M+ZDbdFFKSm VUK32xjFXq+N48nprHR9/OjgY/o/odGh0kPdPEYVhqWYUPJa1xO2il9CEieCx/FxIJVa 28t0yJe28npsT5VOT81JgQ2BAkcO5UcS7wGp/FW44LeJVh6wsdn756iX0TVcp4y8eRt2 xZgemAn7FUnhYK+ewyJQ5uznCQAuYqD8ejmVaUHthK8vvXZI96taogzWQD3YNQ7QxPeG /diQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI73fsW3YYdcB4ReU2l6yUFvtb/ypxEeKIxUAt+GqC5SuU3ri7jua7keANuzBG47g== X-Received: by 10.67.23.202 with SMTP id ic10mr11006079pad.127.1456602570108; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (125.25.255.123.static.snap.net.nz. [123.255.25.125]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ud8sm27824100pac.11.2016.02.27.11.49.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:49:28 -0800 (PST) To: Bob Hinden References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:49:38 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Barry Leiba , IETF , IAB , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:49:32 -0000 Bob, I agree with you. I didn't actually advocate the minimalist version; I just wanted to point out that we need a BCP in any case. So, I suggest something like this: OLD: If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this document, without requiring further modification to this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. NEW: If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of the processes embodied in this document, pending any modification to this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. Brian On 26/02/2016 12:35, Bob Hinden wrote: > Brian, >=20 >>> >>> [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point= ; >>> it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's >>> being changed in how we document this process.] >> >> I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats >> on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling >> them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says >> just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB." >> >> Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if >> the minimalist version attracts interest. >> >=20 > I think it should remain an RFC in the current style. I think it=E2=80= =99s an important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documente= d in an RFC. >=20 > Further, the ISOC By-laws don=E2=80=99t change very often, from a pract= ical point of view we don=E2=80=99t need to be concerned this document wi= ll need to be updated very often. The last ISOC by-laws change that this= update is dealing with took several years to go from conception to adopt= ion >=20 > Bob >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Sat Feb 27 12:35:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC751AD0CA; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AF4FY0WjrDwU; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E943B1AD0C0; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l127so152792280iof.3; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=8xZhVARkDfMkkzdrl1u2TJ5KV5l4v2+PTnebi1l+HkE=; b=p5cRhVQJF71pLC7DKR04zc+h2Z5ehb1CnniHi8LidbpkNqBRWAmnytkkAtaUToln/h aNsFZS/N30Fi1IHE09axyohOrJiHckh+IPf2e6FttMVPN+lmChiEOSsGnOYsEwqEA+TG qfKA0dUGPfEIiYUpn5itRP8YnGKRLvUQ3dhnfCcIpnbj0g3VbLGwyJn/+mibaqehkQVm lxWCYiEJ9xNQascjBouOG5e+sqHnPicbnKQ274HGAvM/Mfzc2ZI3bk+fByde9CZFOzpQ xwxx/ZlodkoIzaIBCUiCZHDNTxhxDL2+1Gs1QV3h/Adzq0hu4D+GzaawkGmlpzekcoMO V3GQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=8xZhVARkDfMkkzdrl1u2TJ5KV5l4v2+PTnebi1l+HkE=; b=dJrXUMlOU1HQkcJrgJa3Jfo0Zt2T2289eTXP0aBrsXogfOWKvvQzQbxcU7vWegWL7F 2GgQ14d04P4ulK1yzVLmxLEJ7WrYrq3sYEsZ7j1Wh2178nJEDhN46aTlm8Hj1PkQdp44 uTC9ClxQS0xAQbuO0pYrbMzqj+Om/694ocZYNH8s+iADOh32hqycVAZssdLgj2s80bW5 Siv0zdMpfLldFW4mmJFdsHYGIif/3bpbz0R6p7sXyp81K0g4PcL+isUZpImt4bRk/Hr+ w2coSF8PG1a+BckbaI6cKmTeQmhKBNBBU5pWrDPOZjXSWLk8pfRNI8GriJXFNXv5u+Y5 t4Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSPMOP0dLoCrZrSTIWHovRqScE4tkLx6T3wlDkixtCx81KxP15m5wVzUbWHI53K35UOYYp9POs8eRQkPw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.5.149 with SMTP id 143mr16480431iof.129.1456605349333; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.184.195 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eb0G-prVgKcZS9J7BW1xJArlxfc Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: IAB , Bob Hinden , IETF , "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:35:51 -0000 > I agree with you. I didn't actually advocate the minimalist version; > I just wanted to point out that we need a BCP in any case. > > So, I suggest something like this: > > OLD: > If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB > appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will > make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this > document, without requiring further modification to this document. > Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. > > NEW: > If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF > appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may > make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of > the processes embodied in this document, pending any modification to > this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. I think a change such as that would be good. Barry From nobody Sun Feb 28 08:11:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F141A1DBE; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3kFrqeE8Elg; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22f.google.com (mail-qg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BF21A1C06; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y9so100842746qgd.3; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=En/hISlssSVyIM+rIOxGCINMT2V66c1cFUJ02TH9tF4=; b=mF9HvGBEHb8BZl3cUFV4ZHfqbtz07KQ6W231ETNk+2kW5AoPAFMlcUM0jWDvHW3wpl H8vCIiXsdjFqBwcCqlAaEjXr879RblI3MYpBlM20KijR5Mdp/iTNIUx3hmGRMhIFbBvl 2IP5Gu/X8b/OHiA3ma3hH7S9jOhQGqtD1DMvwTeAgvdACx1AXy2StJbZtej//gxFe5Im nnj2YfioxiQRjZ8fCqDPCBIY1sUvUMKZYUkheWGjLGATR3iz+wdnQYL84sV0nZdihWN1 MHwCaqWcZNIduuDnHjb3tA+IZf/zV/qNZRP3WI25uVPfKZgEMG8fdfx39SRe76+8H+bJ 6wTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=En/hISlssSVyIM+rIOxGCINMT2V66c1cFUJ02TH9tF4=; b=YvGiswuLP73XEC10qKZvGvqOAPgRTDYvt5T+I0Pj/vbY9WAy762T4MgYlotauTmuzz HivW55Jc7cQ+DyajdFxp5gTBJfNagttPzfHr3VlwlJNhTnWuvj3PiCanFDx/6t0jotbX O7qDfH+T2HR9Z+15R4WLo+VXB8KxlSce6AX+MeFO61J0PzVSAjSq1IhlDtvqyAn9AScY AwhcbKov1nBrKEdXmwDKRAUMUmfSFCjPn9ovk/etGYz8EsHlVNd2VGK6qbMxBzDPDvg8 Nwne4MVo4vxnBPmREZPwc5EEiDOej6J28ONqSY337TddM1qb1fNB8I6ylOgm23FQaHrk KrLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKmtpECQ5YNulaaIH2nK0iEnTAb29Tz7J28tQO2QkLL1msy90ThmIFQT6hXgBwMgw== X-Received: by 10.140.20.183 with SMTP id 52mr14277223qgj.38.1456675910436; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4d00:abf0:7d39:ec64:74a7:7fe8? ([2601:647:4d00:abf0:7d39:ec64:74a7:7fe8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 139sm9177896qho.2.2016.02.28.08.11.47 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:48 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_18D07717-931F-45E0-841B-8A50242DEB7E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:44 -0800 Message-Id: References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: IETF , Bob Hinden , architecture-discuss@ietf.org, IAB , Barry Leiba , Brian Carpenter Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:11:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_18D07717-931F-45E0-841B-8A50242DEB7E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba > wrote: >=20 >>> NEW: >>> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the >>> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the >>> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding >>> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the >>> processes embodied in this document, pending any >>> modification to this document. Such changes will be >>> announced via an IAB statement. >>=20 >> I think a change such as that would be good. >=20 > I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and > statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but > that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the > BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly. I agree. The IAB shouldn=E2=80=99t delay it=E2=80=99s board appointment = until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a = reasonable amount of time. Thanks, Bob --Apple-Mail=_18D07717-931F-45E0-841B-8A50242DEB7E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJW0xxBAAoJEK7rdBF357uof44H/j8mKxdy0Fvwx/RDTz8qNha0 /cW/yM8f07saSB8nalSbFO/Q8flBtRT1JOspUUH8gJw+oz98yVbIH4v7rX6kPNuN /GgJeD1EL8ropXhMkjqODuH0KWoD+dYHle7FualA1IPa/Ya/WFfXIxjCvCswIhRb ddwLVfEDzdWOimWAKSrastcvsYKU5ZLsT12YmBXeyxqdiYoaaJL2/w1d0PJylLPJ LfG6oECRWl4YnEQoUV2q7UDykFa4/L4b72v0luKwEvzfKU8usroArlFQ6NJMCXg9 Tka49oMafCF4E5fSULBxoP7OueOiluX72jQB1arHzcfie0tnibnzVhMVnVTOnr8= =GFEY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_18D07717-931F-45E0-841B-8A50242DEB7E-- From nobody Sun Feb 28 10:48:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888161A8AC2; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZgASggZzjRxm; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7FB1A8AB7; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id fl4so78962709pad.0; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qxB3b8Lm12ZpwRc1AGD8qmwD/2EFP9TzB1XDPikEluE=; b=iZ45L7tWvoBZBJ8sk1GfiU0gh/y31tpLszdZV6FzgMRrUR2b1m/tAnoppKe2EP0+pi n3BVah54ePjdYDKBkici251+4/etRWIDz68Px5l8EUAW7FLfKgrdHPplAMmwokeM9K2d TcgSeHJlM8FmK8B4VGXIPIkOEAyLg+dwWfUBDBGUbhVYlD2R8mZAMpSHCN/LzSQSqhBd wAPwNi6b7GVmqnHLXJKHT+ehND+rqBg2pvTTEH4icI1LnLL1Xm3/cWSHe5VVHmVrWdmb NjogS1VYHw73OEd9YhSa+iUyyGXmr+OWZNPdPCPyQeeLcMBZ9Ds5XizpXO8rocU3+xS9 5U/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qxB3b8Lm12ZpwRc1AGD8qmwD/2EFP9TzB1XDPikEluE=; b=gphQxvNlie3psMT2mO7i3Ib1EXeptrXO0Ifq7bFjFGB16YMQxMUO3D5EyrAqn144Oj kp7fcgTb2v5531jxOaWPfcxzc6nhVQr0/DWX1r+jRxPem6jxAYdzGla1JdseTlbjScQ5 QVWrIAlmBG5s7hpbABytHIqel/gOc62I62mlb9X+eRPVTx9qSs7iLC2Ip59HCtmQvtZA kFTiBl9AoE00fMxUqidNy75nDDNFnvM9vvWtYwf9oGzfdJs+3Ew6N7jIHyW2ZSheBVjk ZmVobY+OoavaAjCeRhgioQ/4kGdDLHH0Em/dk4O1kmplxjfC6+dVJgew8/WZmtLZ0Nr2 uQKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLx3BvAjf0ilRGvZ77FiqjMPDabA7CCzHA7gzOm3SyBUWSvTnR0YuljYOKf2tS9HQ== X-Received: by 10.67.23.161 with SMTP id ib1mr16438346pad.156.1456685326264; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.22] ([118.148.66.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ko9sm32708019pab.37.2016.02.28.10.48.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:48:44 -0800 (PST) To: Bob Hinden , John C Klensin References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:48:57 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, Barry Leiba , IETF , IAB Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:48:48 -0000 Well, OK. NEW NEW: If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of the processes embodied in this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then propose a corresponding update to this document within one year. Regards Brian On 29/02/2016 05:11, Bob Hinden wrote: >=20 >> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote= : >> >> >> >> --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba >> wrote: >> >>>> NEW: >>>> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the >>>> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the >>>> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding >>>> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the >>>> processes embodied in this document, pending any >>>> modification to this document. Such changes will be >>>> announced via an IAB statement. >>> >>> I think a change such as that would be good. >> >> I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and >> statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but >> that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the >> BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly. >=20 > I agree. The IAB shouldn=E2=80=99t delay it=E2=80=99s board appointmen= t until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasona= ble amount of time. >=20 > Thanks, > Bob >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Feb 29 07:39:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509EC1B343F; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBkLX2zisPxE; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DDC1B3439; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id y9so119392068qgd.3; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=uHdSS2RhHB+zIB2vmgFleTgDV/XwKag0j1+vpdD3c+g=; b=p3UFZzXe91V2qKCRaAzABFkldcCpH33AQ6BW6jbQa1LKYMACs3igCfET/zDhFEaro2 ookzXTdWB6SFkS3cHBVPD/tfAgD3369CHzLk7SOK/WFn0+73efAFROgWFCbsFkdzhtOb 8iClyMOwTJsRa9G1+095iCoqAnMPhcvkPOyiofsTfPhAvY1T3iQBZhhMJoQ1aS+MQ4S3 XnBr3wG+sXDpb+gdW+Oq24G3YscboyET7MaoBbGRVyQS04hd9OKO6usA8bvcg9OAkhGr bFnE9fqj3EDY3IaACZEujMyWg04PKD0Jt3uDI5rCrU3RjJnk1ulC8VVq7/2QHMOAqOLx u43g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=uHdSS2RhHB+zIB2vmgFleTgDV/XwKag0j1+vpdD3c+g=; b=GLAKJrG2eYlfhFyL8WCCiQGFO0UE9sWKVHar0b80cUJTNf4xwFSzBNhRqH2oSw6p8w CPUpRvxpIoUGj6gRTQE5FMYIR1g+awr4wCdJeBT9QNv9xJ0O4bKSKFB7q9YHfxtkq2k+ b9H4j3xypifjA1MiRfgbZQWrkr9RG/P6eyMRa827xnS3wNKK6lNq8OYYKbWWvfGkvlG9 qlGe89LMP4ESkAS1BPlDGBXz3TNusPAgBORKj6p7nAkSqbqsGpo85jyKNHiaBfyQ8D5O pPnO5OLyX9wPSCQxR7CYrpyI/1T+KcemegLPCBVIrCbO3p9lrWSEZCZWd8qTBVm6W9Xj 7vhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI1M+X3n6KypURGQK4X54Vvxggk2oWA89hukXBozy3KG4/eAHpWuLU03Fzhtp9i1A== X-Received: by 10.140.129.79 with SMTP id 76mr21169339qhb.28.1456760360935; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4d00:abf0:851:f342:330d:f8f9? ([2601:647:4d00:abf0:851:f342:330d:f8f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b85sm11092024qhc.9.2016.02.29.07.39.18 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:19 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B398F856-4BD8-4582-B167-D7DF8605C384"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:15 -0800 Message-Id: <61C2940E-5EE3-48B1-9A53-65D039B0CA3C@gmail.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> To: Brian Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: IETF , Bob Hinden , architecture-discuss@ietf.org, IAB , John C Klensin , Barry Leiba Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:39:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B398F856-4BD8-4582-B167-D7DF8605C384 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Brian, > On Feb 28, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Well, OK. >=20 > NEW NEW: > If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the > number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the > timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding > modifications to the frequency and the timing of the > processes embodied in this document. Such changes will > be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then > propose a corresponding update to this document within > one year. Fine for me. Bob --Apple-Mail=_B398F856-4BD8-4582-B167-D7DF8605C384 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJW1GYkAAoJEK7rdBF357uooUUH/17McEMulZpdJMQ57z9vLyr5 zHgzHTltV79tlC0vQdzr+ZhzM536FxIItmgc2udH+78yGnoeKWqC2qmAMsnCvs3c iRSYVdqMpXnmVAwBpalyibvBeCpo1UJBRqIgIlDgBoEbstnFK/ozWhmgBxyN9Fbp xvyiyeMtVMFEmz6OUd6qRHpmILYB50tqGm5b8agWwI3lSy42EkMhlT68tRkXXMpV +RUssYKe0irTGfvUnESc3x4x4+fhBNKrIU1AcP7Mn34zADo9A71dTQMSXIE1G7aR 7kB+NaK5b5+//kafszEtynxk9gdjPSh/UZRROJmWEtNy4OGfxFyC8rzYZAB/z/Y= =UAYl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B398F856-4BD8-4582-B167-D7DF8605C384-- From nobody Mon Feb 29 09:27:33 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC6F1AD2F6; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:40:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qkxwCqHOBo_L; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:39:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3EB1AD151; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:39:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1aZlec-000NTy-V0; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:39:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:39:49 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Barry Leiba , Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:27:33 -0800 Cc: IAB , Bob Hinden , IETF , architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:40:01 -0000 --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba wrote: >> NEW: >> If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the >> number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the >> timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding >> modifications to the frequency and the timing of the >> processes embodied in this document, pending any >> modification to this document. Such changes will be >> announced via an IAB statement. > > I think a change such as that would be good. I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly. john From nobody Mon Feb 29 09:27:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBFF1AC3B8; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIu74VvgFv3i; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3EF1AC3B7; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 11:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1aa7Oi-000Pyp-Qi; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:52:56 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:52:51 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Brian E Carpenter , Bob Hinden Message-ID: <30A65F1EDC5394C9DFBB4F69@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:27:33 -0800 Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, Barry Leiba , IETF , IAB Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures) X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:53:04 -0000 --On Monday, February 29, 2016 07:48 +1300 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Well, OK. > > NEW NEW: > If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the > number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the > timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding > modifications to the frequency and the timing of the > processes embodied in this document. Such changes will > be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then > propose a corresponding update to this document within > one year. Much improved. FWIW, I'd prefer "should" in the last sentence to "must". While I think they are unlikely, one can imagine circumstances that would prevent them from doing so as well as debates over what "propose" means. If they fail to do so, the community presumably has ways to hold the IAB accountable that avoid the constitutional crisis around this particular issue implied by "must". I also think "one year" is too long as a target. Perhaps "The IAB must then initiate work on a corresponding update to this document with the expectation that a proposal will be completed in under a year." or words to that effect. thanks, john