Hi Rahmat,
I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns. You seem
to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New Year, anyway.
Brian
"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> Thank you for you reply and your valuable time. This following
> is "LONG" (as it is now the dragon year :-). You might want
> to hit d(delete) now, or adjust your procmail configuration.
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> >>> Files can be obtained via
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt
>
> >> 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC?
>
> > Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an
> > IETF committee.
>
> Oh, I see... first of all, I have no problem that the IESG
> is the one in charge of giving each BCP a "sequence" number.
> However, letting the IESG approve its "appealing body" charter
> might be a little bit complicated.
>
> Borrowing Li's term, a BCP is something that is:
> ....................................
> "accepted by the IETF, and by God,
> this is how we're gonna do things".
> ....................................
>
> In my understanding, therefore, a BCP should be more than
> just accepted by the IETF. Furthermore, the first charter
> of IAB was introduced in a different way:
>
> ............................................................
> Subject: Draft IAB charter as part of ISOC
> From: Lyman Chapin
> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92
>
> [...] Before I present the charter to the ISOC board,
> I would like to hear from any of you who may have comments
> on the draft. Incorporation of the IAB into the ISOC brings
> the IESG, IETF, and all of the other "pieces" into the ISOC
> as well, so please read the proposed charter carefully,
> and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the
> IAB and/or IETF as a whole.
>
> [... see also RFC-1358 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1358.txt ]
> .............................................................
>
> And so was RFC-1602 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt )
>
> .........................................................
> Notice
>
> [...] This document is provisional, pending legal review
> and concurrence of the Internet Society Trustees. [...]
> .........................................................
>
> See also the minutes DRAFT of POISED95 WG, Los Angeles,
> 4 & 5 March 1996:
>
> ..........................................................
> Minutes: Bob Steen
> Chair: Erik Huizer
>
> Overall Document Issues.
> ========================
> All three documents need to be accepted by the ISOC BoT.
> They will be given last call at the IETF level and then sent
> with a letter to the ISOC BoT.
>
> (... this following is extra ...)
> There was a short discussion on whether or not the Poised96
> should try to find out what is wrong with the process and
> examine the IAB, IETF, IRTF Roles What's wrong? What's not?
> The goal being to make a broad recommendation to fix these
> problems. After discussion, this was dropped as unworkable.
> ...........................................................
>
> So, what is the problem of clarifying who reviews the IAB
> charter, and how it is going to be modified? Basically,
> the IESG should concentrate with IETF's "core business",
> and get rid (=out source) whatever the IESG is not
> interested to do in the first place.
>
> >> 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between
> >> ISOC and IAB. Why?
>
> > The following seems clear enough to me:
>
> > The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of
> > Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical,
> > architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters
> > pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies.
>
> Why? What for? It is about time for the IAB to understand how
> important it is -- as an "appeal body", and not as a "super IESG".
> The IAB is needed for maintaining the integrity of the IETF,
> and to make sure that the IESG does what it supposed to do.
> I have no idea (due to the poor documentation) whether the IESG
> is really listen to the IAB when approving a new WG.
>
> The ISOC is needed just like a monarchy needs a "king" or "queen"
> but nothing else. The ISOC is needed to approve the IAB charter,
> to appoint a NomCom chair, providing legal protections,
> perhaps as a supreme appeal body, etc.
>
> Even being an "appeal body" can be delegated to a NOMCOM like
> (or jury like) committee. But, the IAB should make sure that
> the appeal body proceed as it supposed to do.
>
> >> Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis
>
> > I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to
> > include in the charter and not included in the existing draft.
>
> Still not clear? Basically, I would like to suggest to put
> back point #5 and especially point #6 of RFC 1160
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1160.txt)
>
> ..............................................................
> The IAB performs the following functions:
> 1) Sets Internet Standards,
> 2) Manages the RFC publication process,
> 3) Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,
> 4) Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying
> long-range problems and opportunities,
> 5) Acts as an international technical policy liaison and
> representative for the Internet community, and
> 6) Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within
> the IETF or IRTF frameworks.
> ..............................................................
>
> regards,
>
> --
> - Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
> - Da da da ich lieb dich nicht du liebst mich nicht aha -- TRIO82 -
