Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 18. august 2005 10:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> 
> wrote:
>
> > People interested in our administrative affairs may want to
> > look at this draft and comment. I think it's fairly self-explanatory,
> > and we will want to proceed fairly quickly so that it doesn't
> > become a critical path item.
>
>
> Brian,
>
> I don't see any problems with this in isolation... on the nitpicking 
> side, I dislike the passive voice of section 2 "A trust... has been 
> formed". Unless one believes in autogenesis of trusts, SOMEONE formed 
> the trust, and it/they should be named. ("IASA in cooperation with other 
> parties"?

Sure. The trust will have Settlors and Trustees. We can be a bit more
specific.

> Also, I believe the term "update to BCP 101" is ill-defined (but then, 
> we never worked out the details of whether or not a BCP could have more 
> than one document); this is an update to RFC 4071, and the intent is 
> that all references to "BCP 101" hereafter should be interpreted as "RFC 
> 4071 as amended by this document".

I read the relevant bits of 2026 a couple of times, and I am pretty
convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not
be a bug, but that's what the text seems to say). So this needs to be a
new BCP that updates the RFC 4071 version of BCP 101. You're correct that
it needs to be stated a bit more clearly.

> As an update to RFC 4071, I believe it would be better to say which 
> section it updates; I believe section 2 of this document should be 
> considered inserted before section 3, paragraph 6.

Actually there are number of places in 4071 that are affected; so wherever
it is virtually inserted, it changes a number of sentences.

> I believe the document will read more cleanly if the words "rather than 
> ISOC" are deleted from section 2. If you wish to say anything about how 
> material previously thought to be owned by ISOC, a separate section 
> ("transitional arrangements") could be inserted.

That material will be in the Trust document itself. It's intensely legal
and would be very tricky to duplicate here.
> External to the document:
> When will the Terms of Reference for the trust (or whatever you call 
> them for trusts) be made available to the community?

I've asked the IAOC that question.

   Brian
>                       Harald


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf