At 6:00 PM -0700 9/8/04, Bernard Aboba wrote:
At the moment, we are discussing various scenarios for housing the entity
that handles IETF administration. This is a different question from who
does the work. In the scenarios in which the ISOC takes on a significant
administrative role, I would caution against having ISOC simultaneously
take on one or more major roles as an IETF contractor -- since this
violates the principle of "arms length" dealings.
Given this, the following sentence confuses me:
"But that does not mean ISOC should take over worrying about
the IETF's administrative details."
Even if ISOC were not taking on direct responsibility for doing any of
the work involved, as an administrator of contracts with the entities
who do take it on, ISOC would have to understand the work.
Administering a contract for work you don't understand is a
fast and painful education in either the topic at hand or the
sad, sad state of human cupidity. As it stands now, ISOC's
role in the RFC Editor contract is balanced by its need to understand the
standards process; it should and does understand what the
RFC Editor does for the IETF. I don't personally see the same connection
for the work managed by the administrative entity and the work of ISOC.
My use of the use of the term "details" above was sloppy and distracting,
though, and I apologize. I did not mean to imply that the ISOC
BoT would be in the escalation chain for RT tickets.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf