Elwyn, Thanks for the review. Note the current draft that is out for IETF last call is draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07. Comments below. Thanks, Bob > On Jun 20, 2019, at 12:53 AM, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-05 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2019-06-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-21 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready with nits > > Major Issues: > > None > > Minor Issues: > > s3.2, para 1 and para 7: I feel the phrase 'superior candidate' is rather > demeaning to an incumbent who may have served with distinction. Suggest in para > 1 s/a superior candidate/an alternative candidate/. In para 7 s/A superior > candidate is one who the NomCom believes/The nominated candidate selected for > each open position by theNomCom, whether incumbent or alternative, is the one > that they believe/ This original text from RFC7437 and with my editors hat on, I don’t think we should be rewriting the base text. I think that is out of scope for this bis. Personal comment. I would hope that a NomCom doesn’t change sitting people unless the new person was superior. Would we want them to just change someone who is doing a good job without good reason? > > Nits and Editorials: > > s2, Confirmed Candidate: s/that has been/who has been/ (for consistency with > Candidate) ditto > > s3.2, para 1: s/its incumbent/its incumbent, assuming that the incumbent has > indicated willingness to continue in post,/ ditto, but I also don’t think this is necessary here. It’s made clear in p5 in the same section. > > s3.2, para 2: Section 5.4 of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-04 indicates that > there are term limits for the IETF LLC board positions and Section 2 of > draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-02 indicates there are term limits for IETF Trust > positions. rfc4071bis is now -11 trust-update is now -03 This was fixed in draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07. The text in -07 is: Although there is no term limit for serving in any IESG, IAB, or IETF Trust position, the NomCom may use length of service as one of its criteria for evaluating an incumbent. I don’t see any mention of term limits in draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update -02 or -03. Where did you see that? > > s3.3, para 3: s/is selected/are selected/ There are only two paragraphs in Section 3.3, I think you mean para 1. > > s3.7.1: The summaries of expertise need to be made public to facilitate > candidate's ability to address the requirements in their submissions to the > NomCom and for others to make appropriate comments on candidates. I assume you are proposing to add this text. While I personally agree, I think it’s out of scope.
