What kinds of documents? (Re: One last word on operational reserves)
we went into the topic of whether a separate MoU was required at the
beginning of December (thread with subject "Adminrest: IASA BCP:
Separability", subthread started by brian Carpenter on December 2), and
concluded that no other document should be necessary.
A few cycles ago, while we were still waiting for ISOC's next round of
feedback, some of the debate was phrased in terms of "specify what the IETF
wants the IASA to do" - assuming that ISOC would state whether or not it
could fulfil those requirements. I believe that ISOC has now done so,
without raising any issues that require "major surgery", and that the BCP
is a sound basis for going forward with setting up this activity within
ISOC. (If not - better get those comments in now!)
WRT the BCP's legal status - I don't think it can be an agreement per se -
if IETF is considered legally part of ISOC, such an agreement is a part
agreeing with a whole, which doesn't seem to make sense. What it can be
treated like is the output of a planning process, which ISOC can then
commit to implement - and in this case, a planning process that has
provisions for how the resulting plan should be changed (BCP update), which
we would also expect ISOC to agree to.
As I said then - I get rather nervous when I get presented with scenarios
where I would sign agreements with ISOC on behalf of the IETF, when the
only legal cover I have for this not being my personal responsibility is
that I'm part of ISOC.
No disagreement on the need to revise RFC 2031 - but I think that's a job
for my successor to undertake.
--On 19. januar 2005 10:52 -0800 Fred Baker <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 09:33 AM 01/19/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Again, I don't have any concerns about how these issues are met, but I
want us to be very, very clear on what we are asking for from ISOC.
I think also that we need to be very sure that we know what the BCP is.
What your words above - and other comments you have made in this forum -
make it sound like is "the BCP is the IETF's request to ISOC". What I
have heard from others is that "the BCP is the IETF's commitment to
ISOC". Here I would gently demur, pointing out that there is actually no
commitment made by IETF towards ISOC in the BCP; rather, IETF is
identifying here what it expects *ISOC* to do for *it* (set up the IASA,
hire and pay the IAD, manage budgets, fund-raise, deliver accounting
information, and so on). When we hear requests for ISOC to pass a
resolution (or something more) "to support the BCP", I understand it to
be "the agreement between IETF and ISOC".
Those are very different things.
If the BCP is the IETF's request to ISOC, then the agreement between IETF
and ISOC is a different document, and the ISOC Board should pass a
resolution supporting *that* document. If the BCP is the agreement
between ISOC and IETF, and IETF expects ISOC to pass a resolution
supporting it, then what we are discussing here is what ISOC and IETF
will actually do, not what one side is requesting of the other.
What ISOC will actually do is ensure that it has the ability to perform
all of its functions when the chips are down. One of those functions is
How would you like to document that?
By the way, before we are done, I believe that the IETF and ISOC should
update our MOU. The current MOU is RFC 2031, and is badly out of date
even with respect to current commitments ISOC has made to the IETF. The
updated MOU should, I believe, not only describe the expectations that
IETF has of ISOC, but the expectations that ISOC has of the IETF, in
terms of supporting its educational and public policy activities through
counsel, position papers like RFC 1984, and personnel.
Ietf mailing list