RE: Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest
2004-12-13 21:13:47
Fred,
I believe we strongly agree here.
I did not think for a second that the ISOC Board would be asked to resolve
to adopt a document over which it had, until that point, no opportunity to
review, to offer substantive comment and to reach a position where it was
comfortable with the obligations being asked of ISOC in this structure.
There is a delicate piece of process management here that I personally hope
will be happening sooner rather than later where the ISOC Board will be
given that opportunity to provide its comments and perspectives on this
document to the IETF prior to the IETF process signing off on this document
for publication as a BCP.
Regards,
Geoff
At 02:50 PM 14/12/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:22 PM 12/14/04 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
I would certainly add my voice in support of the Internet Society
adopting a specific resolution of adoption of this document (the IASA
BCP, referenced, as Scott mentions, by its RFC number). This is clear
demonstration of a level of organizational commitment that endures beyond
the current collection of Trustees.
I'm certainly in favor of that after the IETF discusses the document and
its provisions with the ISOC Board of Trustees and proposes such a resolution.
Let me put it in terms of an
analogy. draft-baker-tsvwg-vpn-signaled-preemption-01.txt was posted as
an internet draft on the 25th of September. It has not been sent to the
RFC Editor to be published. Of course, I also have not asked anyone to
consider sending it there. So who is at fault for the fact? The IESG, for
not having done what may be my will, or mine for not expressing such a
will (if it exists) to the IESG? I think it is my problem - the process is
documented, and I have not initiated it.
Most of the documents that the ISOC BoT has received from the IETF place
very little burden on ISOC - the IETF will do this and that, and there is
perhaps a light duty placed on the CEO or a very improbable duty in the
final event of an appeal. In this case, the IETF asks ISOC to hire people,
construct budgets that roughly double its current annual investment in the
IETF, and take on additional responsibilities of various kinds. The ISOC
Board has had some discussion with the IETF during the process, but there
is also discussion that has not happened. In terms of generating this BCP,
it has been clearly stated that this is an IETF discussion, in which the
IETF decides what it wants. If you were (still) on the ISOC Board, would
you approve the document without a presentation of its provisions and
discussion between the IETF leadership and the ISOC Board of the
incorporated expectations? Hmm, thought not. That would not be consistent
with a fiduciary responsibility.
By the way, I requested that this dialog happen in the November board
meeting in an email to dasani(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no on 12 August. The reasons it
did not happen should be obvious. That doesn't mean that it is not now needed.
The ISOC BoT is, as I said before, very supportive and very willing. We
are at this moment knee deep in generating the necessary budgets and so
on. The process, just like the IETF's process for converting an I-D to an
RFC, is publicly documented. But a finished document, a discussion of it
with the ISOC Board, a proposed resolution, and a request to so resolve
have not been received by the ISOC Board. The ball is, at this point, in
the IETF's court.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|