Subject: 1601bis -03: Still Vague

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:32:20 +0800

Hello:

Just a quick comment on 1601bis version 3
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-rfc1601bis-03.txt

It is not clear on why the IAB does not want to take time for
a retreat/ self-assessment of what really works and what not.
It seems that the IAB still does not want to empower itself :-(.

The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation 
with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague. No wonder, if the 
RFC Editor once has claimed:
   "The RFC Editor is chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC) 
    and the Federal Network Council (FNC)"
   (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc-editor/what-is-rfc-editor.html)

OK, it's time for an Oolong Tea Party :^,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
Here we are,poised on the precipice of suicide slope-Calvin 20Feb89

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:31:21 -0800

At 03:32 PM 3/3/00 +0800, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:
>with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague.

It seems quite clear to me. You might want to suggest alternative wording 
that you think is clearer.

>  No wonder, if the

That might have been true at one point, and things have changed. What's the 
problem with that?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:35:53 +0800

Hello:

First of all, it is not over until the RFC-Editor sings :^.

> that you think is clearer.

It is not about wordsmithing, but more about the fundamentals of
section 2. Sub-section 2.1 is about "architectural oversight in 
more detail". However, it is not clear on how to measure the 
effectiveness of that sub-section. Thus, it will be not so easy 
for a NomCom member to evaluate the performance of the IAB. 
The only clue is perhaps the IAB's long queue of work-in-progress. 
For example, 1601bis has been more than 4 years in queue. Therefore, 
the nature of revising 1601bis must not be easy. Nonetheless, there 
will be no organizational improvement until the IAB is willing 
continuously to improve itself. See also "Managing The Non-Profit 
Organization -- Practices and Principles" (Peter F. Drucker, 1990)
for more details.

> That might have been true at one point, and things have changed. 
> What's the problem with that?

Not much, just $1,295,517

regards,