Hi Brian,
At 03:20 PM 14-03-2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not Jason or Jon but...
Ok.
You mean 6702. The answer is that a reader of 6702 (which is not obsolete
and is cited, e.g. in https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informal/ )
might find the reference to "the Executive Director of the IETF"
and try to contact the wrong person. (Admittedly, only a sophisticated
reader who knows to look for updates will do this, but that's because
of the RFC archival policy.)
Sorry, I meant RFC 6702. That section in RFC 6702 is about
encouraging the WG Chairs and Area Directors to send an internal IETF
request. I gather the persons in such positions have an adequate
understanding of how IPR issues are handled in the IETF or can ask
the Responsible Area Director if they have any difficulty.
According to BCP 9, informational RFCs are considered to be updated
by RFC 7475. However, that RFC does not show RFC 3710 as being updated.
Why would we leave known errors in RFCs?
The practice has been to correct known errors in RFCs through errata.
> I took a quick look at some of the other BCPs related to the
> IETF. One of them states that "there is no board of directors for
> the IETF". That definition is likely "historic".
It's still true. IETF LLC has a board, but the IETF doesn't.
https://www.ietf.org/about/ has a reference to RFC 4677. That RFC
was obsoleted in 2012. It looks like some parts of the IETF would
like to have a structure without reviewing how that fits in what is
known as the "IETF".
The phrase seems to be in two RFCs, of which RFC4677 is already obsolete.
Yes.
RFC3233 hardly mentions administration, so there is really nothing wrong
with it IMHO. Even this:
> The Internet Society provides many services
> to the IETF, including insurance and some financial and logistical
> support.
is still true, since IETF LLC is a disregarded entity of ISOC.
The part about the "insurance" is incorrect as there was a comment
about that issue during a previous Last Call. There are also bylaws
which specify the role of the LLC Board. That document specifies
that the company has an "Executive Director". Why does the title of
the officer have to be replaced?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
