

SM sm at resistor.net
Sun Jul 10 08:40:17 PDT 2011

Hi John,
>(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.

Budgetary lines generally follow lines of authority.  This has not 
been raised, in public anyway, as an issue in the context of IETF 
activities.  When the RSE/RSOC and IAOC start disagreeing about who 
does what, this may come up.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list