[+mtgvenue, just in case there are folks there not looking at the IETF
list]
Hi SM,
Thanks for the review. Do note that you submitted it after the Last Call
period expired, but it is appreciated nonetheless.
On 2 Feb 2018, at 12:24, Moonesamy wrote:
In Section 1, there is the following: "As always, the community is
encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee
(NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
regarding the discharge of the IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee's performance". Is the IESG and IAB the supervising bodies
of the IAOC?
It is written that way because the IESG and IAB select some of the IAOC
members. They do not directly supervise.
In Section 2.1, which is about "IETF values", there is the following:
"We meet in different locations globally, in order to spread the
difficulty and cost of travel among active participants". From what I
recall, venue selection used to be based on attendance [1] as there
weren't any statistics about participation. Using "attendees" and
"participants" interchangeably may mislead the reader.
The WG's intent, as I understand it, is "participants", not "attendees",
in the section. That is, whether or not we are currently able to measure
"participation", that is the desired metric.
I looked up the word "globally" and its meaning was as follows: "in a
way that relates to the whole world". According to the information
published by the IETF, 99% of IETF meetings were held in the Northern
Hemisphere. Is "globally" used in that sentence to promote a cause or
a point of view?
It's use has no such intention. It is meant to be the same as
"internationally".
Under "Economics", there is the following: "Meeting attendees
participate as individuals". Most of the RFCs has the author listed
as being from a company. Most of the IPR disclosures are from
companies. Does attendee participation as individuals mean that the
IPR disclosed during that participation "belongs" to the individual
instead of the employer?
I think that's out of scope of this document.
Section 3.2 states that "criteria in this subsection are not
mandatory". Is the "MUST" in that subsection mandatory?
Yes, the "MUST notify" is mandatory, but that is not one of the
"criteria in this subsection".
As a nit, there is a typo for "Considerations" in Section 3.3.
Thanks.
In Section 4.1, there is the following: "Participants have a
responsibility to express their views about venues early and often, by
responding to surveys ..." Why should a remote participant be
concerned about venue selection? Based on my experience, the time
difference was sometimes inconvenient.
Other than timezone, another reason for remote participants to fill out
the survey is to discover whether particular locations have caused
people who normally attend not to do so. Other comments might also be
useful.
In Section 4.2, there is the following: "This means that the IESG sets
high level policies related to, among other things, meeting venues.
The IETF Chair, among other things, relays these IESG-determined
policies to the IAOC". Why isn't this draft updating RFC 4071 given
that it changes the "grant of authority"? Why is the IESG using this
intended BCP to specify that it sets high level policies?
This one I'll let my AD answer. I believe 4.2 documents the current
state of affairs.
How are "interested members of the community" chosen (Section 4.7)?
At the discretion of the IAOC. I think it says that, doesn't it?
What is the definition of regions (Section 5.1 (a))? Who defines the
regions?
This document does not define regions and is agnostic on the issue. The
-meeting-policy document does define regions as part of its policy.
In Section 5.4, there is the following: "At this time, the
announcement MUST include any notable economic, health, or safety
risks or references thereto". The latest announcement [2] does not
contain any information about notable risks. I did a quick search and
found a travel advisory stating that "there is some risk to your
security". It does not make sense to have a "MUST" if IASA cannot
comply with it.
Perhaps IASA felt that the risks were not "notable". Either way, I'm not
convinced that it is a demonstration of inability to comply.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides
2.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg17400.html
Thanks again.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478