Again. I agree with Sam and John here. Getting out of the over specification here is important. The IASA will need to write-up some rules, but I think this BCP is the wrong place, having some operational experience is important.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject: Re: Last Call Comments on draft-iasa-bcp-04.txt
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: 01/17/2005 8:00 pm
>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> How the text should be fixed depends a bit on what we do
John> about that "outsourcing" assumption, to which I continue to
John> object. If we can lose it, the paragraph might end up
John> reading something like:
John> The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
John> administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
John> where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the IASC
John> or by outside organizations), so as to maintain an optimal
John> balance of functional performance and cost of each such
John> function. The IAOC should document all such decisions, and
John> the justification for them, for review by the
John> community. Each function should be reviewed on a regular
John> basis, using the assumption that the function is unnecessary
John> and that, if necessary, it is overstaffed, rather than an
John> assumption that anything that has been done is necessary,
John> and adjusted as needed.
John> That probably still needs word smithing. The second
John> sentence may be redundant enough with other statements in
John> the BCP that it can be removed. And the last sentence is a
John> bit long. But it is at least relatively jargon-free.
I support the intent of this paragraph and the implied move away from
the current out sourcing text. I think the last sentence could use
some work but could accept the current text.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf