--On 18. august 2005 10:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
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"?
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".
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.
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.
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?
Ietf mailing list