Hi Pete,
At 07:07 PM 2/5/2018, Pete Resnick wrote:
Thanks for the review. Do note that you submitted it after the Last
Call period expired, but it is appreciated nonetheless.
Thanks for the response. I'll comment inline.
It is written that way because the IESG and IAB select some of the
IAOC members. They do not directly supervise.
Ok.
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.
Ok.
It's use has no such intention. It is meant to be the same as
"internationally".
I'll skip the discussion about this one.
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.
The same argument could be made for Section 4.2 which discusses about
"high-level" policies.
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.
Ok.
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?
Is this draft updating RFC 4071 given that there isn't any mention of
the committee in RFC 4071?
This document does not define regions and is agnostic on the issue.
The -meeting-policy document does define regions as part of its policy.
This document does not reference the meeting-policy document. As
such, it is not possible to understand what the regions are.
Perhaps IASA felt that the risks were not "notable". Either way, I'm
not convinced that it is a demonstration of inability to comply.
Ok.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy