[rfc-i] Comprehensive review of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - IASA

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Sun Jul 10 12:32:16 PDT 2011

--On Sunday, July 10, 2011 08:40 -0700 SM <sm at resistor.net>

> Hi John,
> At 20:50 09-07-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>> (B.32) Section 4.4, Editorial:  The last sentence is awkward.
>> Perhaps: "...the IAD, as guided by the IAOC, has the
>> responsibility to resolve these contractual issues consistent
>> with the procedures specified in BCP 101 and as appropriate
>> under the relevant contracts."
>> It would be even better to get as much of this as possible out
>> of here, leaving a strictly IASA matter to the IASA.  So, IMO,
>> it would be preferable to replace the entire sentence with
>> something like:
>>         "The IAOC must notify the RSOC and IAB that this
>>         action is being taken and then proceed to have it
>>         resolved according to its applicable procedures
>>         subject to any special provisions in the relevant
>>         contracts."
>> While BCP 101 makes it fairly clear that the IAOC should hand
>> this off to the IAD, the whole issue is a matter of IASA/IAOC
>> procedures that should not to be repeated here such that some
>> future change in those procedure by the IASA create a
>> contradiction with this document.
> In some parts, the draft refers specifically to the IAOC (e.g.
> the Abstract), the IAD (e.g. Section 4.2) or IASA.  The IASA
> is ultimately responsible for the financial activities.  The
> details of the mechanism is left to RFC 4071.  If the aim is
> not to update RFC 4071 or create dependencies on specific
> parts of that RFC, the draft should refer to IASA without
> going into the details of that activity.

Yes, exactly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list