Hi SM, > On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:05 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alissa, Pete, > At 05:40 AM 2/6/2018, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Correct. I don't see anything in this document that is inconsistent with RFC 4071 or RFC 3710. > > RFC 4071 make a distinction between administrative work and the IETF's technical functions. What is described as "high-level policies" can also be construed as part of the administrative work of the IAOC. > > As there isn't anything in the draft about RFC 3710, I gather that I don't have to read that RFC to understand this draft. I don't recall ever seeing the IESG publishing its IESG-determined policies. Are there references to those policies or are they "unpublished”? I’m losing the thread of what your criticism is of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process. Perhaps if you have a specific edit to suggest to the text, that would make it more clear. Personally I see no problem with adding a reference to RFC 3710 if there is consensus to do that. (Although, as noted in my AD eval, my personal preference would be to drop Section 4 altogether, but that was not where the WG landed.) Thanks, Alissa > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > >