On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To ease my comparison, I also made a collection-of-RFCs vs. your draft comparison: http://www.arkko.com/ietf/gen/draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis-00-from-rfc-3777-and-updates.diff.html I changed some of the formatting and aligned section numbering. Still, formatting changes result in the diff highlighting some changes when there are no changes. And I didn’t apply the changes from RFC 5078, but they are easy to see in Appendix C.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to do that. I had a feeling I'd be asked, and I was dreading the task. :-)
Overall, I am very happy with draft and did not spot any big issues. In particular, I did not find anything that you had missed or incorrectly copied. I did have a couple of comments, however:
Section 5.12 seems to have text that relates to pre-RFC5680 situation:
The consultations are permitted to include names of nominees, if all
parties to the consultation agree to observe the same confidentiality
rules as the nominating committee itself.
Shouldn’t this be changed? Or am I missing something?
Section 3, item 3:
One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
selected to be reviewed each year.
Strictly speaking, exactly half of the IESG is never selected, with 15 members. Or at least I hope you are not selecting half of the chair every year :-) You do note the odd number of members exception later in the text, but it still felt weird. I’d just say “approximately half” consistently under this item. There is a similar occurrence under the next item as well.
Thanks, I'll review both of these this weekend and post an update or at least a reply.
-MSK