ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]

2004-12-23 05:15:11
Responding to the items/topics that have been recorded as issue 727

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Margaret Wasserman
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 20:54
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)iesg(_dot_)org
Subject: Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt


.. snip ..

    This document
    does not affect the ISOC-IETF working relationship as it relates to
    standards development or the communication of technical advice
    relevant to the policy and educational goals of ISOC.

 I'd cite RFCs 2026 and 2048 as references here.


Mmm... 2026 seems fine.
Not sure about 2048. That is about MIME stuff !!??
So which one do you mean? Probably 2031?

My current edit buffer now says:

     This document
     does not affect the ISOC-IETF working relationship as it relates to
     standards development [RFC2026, RFC2031] or the communication of
     technical advice relevant to the policy and educational goals of ISOC.


.. snip 
 
2.5  Effective Date for Commencement of IASA

    The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
    after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
    [RFC2026] and has been affirmed by a Resolution of agreement by the
    ISOC Board of Trustees.

 Just a minor wording suggestion...  Unless "Resolution of agreement"
 is some type of legal phrase, I'd make the following change:

 s/Resolution of agreement by/resolution of/

 The ISOC Board has some wording that we use for these cases.  We
 will accept the document and agree to carry out our
 responsibilities, as described therein.  We don't use the words
 "Reolution of agreement" to describe that, though.


I have made this change for now.
But it may change completely pending the outcome of Issue 739, or so I think.


.. snip 

    The IAOC may also choose to invite liaisons from other groups, but is
    not required to do so; the IAOC decides whether or not to have a
    liaison to any particular group.  Any such liaisons are non-voting.
    Responsibility for selecting the individual filling a particular
    liaison role with the body from which the IAOC has requested the
    liaison.

 This last sentence isn't a sentence.  Perhaps:

 s/role with/role lies with/ ?

done

    Appointed members of the IAOC serve two year terms.  IAOC terms
    normally end at the first IETF meeting of a year, just as as IAB and
    IESG terms do.

    The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
    members to serve as the chair of the IAOC, with all of the duties and
    responsibilities normally associated with such a position.

 I'd remove everything after the comma.  There is no clear concept
 of what duties and responsibilities would normally be associated
 with such a position, and you have specific responsibilities and
 limits listed later.

No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01.
And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on taking
the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and not fiddle
with the words (as had been done earlier).
So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see this
as just an editorial change.


.. snip 

       All
       contracts executed by ISOC on behalf of IASA shall either include
       a clause allowing termination or transfer by ISOC with six months
       notice, or shall be transferable to another corporation in the
       event that the IASA transitions away from ISOC.

 s/or transfer//  (it is redundant with the second half of 
 this sentence).


done

       Any accrued
       funds, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any
       IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new
       entity.

 By "accrued funds", you presumably mean funds that are currently
 held in the IASA accounts.  So, why not just say so?


Mmm... I am sort of with you.
AT the other hand, I see continued discussion about "ISOC should not
credit xxx to IASA accounts".

So I am not sure your suggestion is just editorial. If we keep all the 
current text about crediting money to IASA accounts, then it is editorial.
But given the ongoing discussion, I have not (yet) made the change.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf