On 1/9/20, 12:08 PM, "Architecture-discuss on behalf of Livingood, Jason" <architecture-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> I agree with that for the IESG, but the IAB is not usually in a position to approve or block specific technical decisions. Yes, it sets architectural direction, but see Richard’s comment down-thread.
[JL] Perhaps we are thinking too narrowly about what the IAB does? Here are some areas for potential conflict that are unrelated to architectural direction:
1 - Confirming the IETF Chair and Area Directors
2 - Standards appeals
3 - RFC Series
4 - Liaison roles
5 - Advice to ISOC
[GD] + 6 - Appoint an ISOC Trustee
[JL] Even in architectural oversight, what if there was a strong push for a particular approach against a particular protocol or codec and someone on the IAB had an undisclosed financial stake in a patent pool that would directly benefit from a certain decision? Or if they "worked" for a university but were 100% funded by a grant from a government that was underwriting their time specifically to work against a specific upgrade to encryption? Or whatever other cases you might imagine.
[JL] So IMO it seems like some CoI policy for the IAB is better than no CoI policy.
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8O2iCzgeSlI5bAPaoLgo-80K8IGXap8sIDzyMyfHcyTaVjxMG_zUxVDXLqj3Nid1$
