Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board o

Brian,

> > [To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point;
> > it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's
> > being changed in how we document this process.]
> I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats
> on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling
> them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says
> just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB."
>
> Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if
> the minimalist version attracts interest.
I think it should remain an RFC in the current style.  I think it’s an 
important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documented in an RFC.

Further, the ISOC By-laws don’t change very often, from a practical point of 
view we don’t need to be concerned this document will need to be updated very 
often.  The last ISOC by-laws change that this update is dealing with took 
several years to go from conception to adoption

Bob

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail