On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I agree with Brian’s comments about this having to update BCP 101 and
think it get too much into how the IAB currently organizes itself.
The document reads like the IAB Chair position on the IAOC will be
replaced by an committee (aka IAB Program). The person in this role is a
voting member of the IAOC and IETF Trust, and needs to be able to exercise
their judgement in real time. It’s going to be a problem operationally if
they have to consult the committee before voting. I think this needs some
more work in the document.
I'm happy to work with the other authors to adjust the language on this,
because that's not the intent. The intent is to have the program lead be
the voting member and to be able to exercise appropriate judgement in real
time. The other program members are there to provide advice based on their
commitment to keep up with the *public* information from the IAOC (so not
its internal correspondence, but the public reports, RFPs, minutes, etc.).
If you have specific language you'd like to see in a revision, please let
us know.
The description in the draft of what this committee does seem like a
subset of the IAOC and Trust responsibilities (one example, it doesn’t
include meeting venue decisions). It’s a lot more than just reviewing
“correspondence”, it's also about how the IAOC works toward decisions. I
don’t know if that was intentional or not. I would think not, but it’s not
clear.
Also, I suspect in practice that the IAB chair doesn’t spend a lot of time
reviwing things like RFPs, IAOC and Trust minutes, and other reports, so
moving this to the IAB committee isn’t that important. They are there for
the bigger issues.
While I understand the motivation behind this, I think that the current
structure for the IAOC and IETF Trust has worked well when we face
significant issues. The IANA transition is the latest of these, but it’s
clear there will be more. I think it’s been very important that IAB chair
is directly involved in how the IAOC responds to IETF and Internet
community issues. Not having the IAB Chair directly involved has downsides
that are not described in the document.
While I agree that it is very important that the IAB has to be invested
in how the IAOC responds to the IETF and Internet community issues (like
the IANA transition), it already responds to many similar issues with the
advice and help of a program. The RSOC, mentioned in the draft, is one.
To take another, there is also a long-standing progam on IANA evolution,
which has provided a great deal of insight on the transition.
Further, it seems to me that the next phase of the IANA transition where
the implementation starts is going to see a bigger load on the IAOC and
IETF Trust. A lot of decisions will have to be made and having the IAB
Chair at the table is going to be important.
The trade-offs here, in a nutshell, are: we can provide the Chair and
limit the time the chair spends at the table; choose a chair specifically
because they have the support to devote all their time to the job; or
split the work so that the IAB gives its attention to this matter through
someone identified as best suited to the specific job. It's not clear we
can get everything at once and even if we can in some particular historical
moment, it's not at all clear that we can count on it as a baseline.
Thanks for your review,
Ted
Bob
On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
I think this draft mixes up two things.
(1) A proposal that the IAB Chair's ex officio seat in the IAOC be
changed
to be a seat for an IAB voting member designated by the IAB. That of
course
can only be achieved by an RFC that formally updates RFC 4071 and so
becomes
part of BCP 101.
(2) A description of some IAB internal organisational matters, which the
IAB
is clearly free to arrange how it wants, and publish if it wants. IAB
internal arrangements don't need to be BCPs.
I've got nothing to say about (2).
About (1), I think we should hear the pros and cons, because I doubt if
this proposal arose in a vacuum. In particular, how would this help the
IAOC be more effective and more responsive to community concerns?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 03/02/2016 07:20, internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Updating the ex-officio member of the IAB in
the IAOC
Authors : Ted Hardie
Andrew Sullivan
Russ Housley
Filename : draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt
Pages : 4
Date : 2016-02-02
Abstract:
At the time the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee was set up
the Internet Architecture Board had an internal structure
significantly different from its current structure. This document
aims to update the ex officio member from the IAB who serves on the
IAOC in order to better account for that change and better match the
skills set out in RFC 4333.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt