Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--At 11:37 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: > Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the > BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC > specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates > they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an issue. So you don't have to rely solely on Harald or Leslie's attestations, the answer from the horse's mouth is yes, NeuStar's fully prepared and able to contract with the (ISOC-based) IAOC consistent with the BCP. And, yes, it's intentionally to make all of these concerns a non-issue. Just to clarify, our interest here is solely an attempt to facilitate a smooth transition of the secretariat operations into an environment consistent with the adminrest objectives. We're proposing to structure this as a non-profit, provide complete financial and operational transparency, open-source the tools, make all IPR we can unequivocally available, and enter into a contract with IAOC specifying all of this in writing for a limited term that includes termination for cause. there's no other motive here than to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of the community. Best of all, we're not the ones making that determination! If this doesn't have the support of the TT and the community, then we won't proceed. We've commenced discussions with the TT and now the community, even though sensitive negotiations are still ongoing, to ensure this can be done for the community's best interest. That's why we can't say more yet regarding the proposed transaction, but are discussing how this scenario would work in the context of the BCP and for the best interests of the community, so we can try to be responsive to that. Discussions or questions are welcome, with the proviso that we obviously can't comment on pending acquisitions in detail. R, Mark Mark D. Foster | EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SVP & CTO | NeuStar, Inc. TEL: +1 571 434 5410/5411 | FAX: +1 571 434 5489 46000 Center Oak Plaza | Sterling, VA 20166 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 12:30:13 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( Yes. We seem to have been moving rather steadily in that direction... This is probably the result of basing our work on a draft (that I wrote) that was largely intended to describe the corporate organization of the IETF administrative support function. Most of the other informraiton in Carl's draft (including how we should handle our contract negotiations) was (at least IMO) okay with both the Scenario C and Scenario O camps and, as a result, has been omitted from the BCP document. And, yes, I do think we should do something to fix it... Perhaps we could review Carl's original draft (which may have expired by now, but I am sure we can find it) and identify sections that we think should be brought over into the IASA BCP? I may be over-eager to get the organization in place - but - perhaps we should get this organizational BCP out the door and clear some tables for working on what we want this shiny new organization of ours to accomplish for us THIS year, rather than, as the BCP tries to be, ANY year? The BCP is not the end. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
I believe the scenarios you are outlining are certainly possible. I don't (personally) believe that we can write rules or process steps to make them impossible. I also am concsiously saying "possible" without any prejudice about "likelihood". That is -- I have no opinion about the likelihood of these possible outcomes. Because we can not make these things impossible, the only thing we can reasonably do is apply judgement. In this case, I believe that requires having a designated human being (or small group of human beings) sit down and discuss with the parties involved. These designated folks have to apply judgement and take action based on their understanding of the situation. As I understand it, that designated person/group are: the IAD and IAOC. That was a long-winded way of saying: these are justified concerns, but we are not as a group going to be able to prove our way out of them; even the IAD-to-be is going to have to say "in my judgement, we should do X". So, to the earlier comment about negotiating backroom closed deals: I don't recognize anything in what has been done/is being proposed that fits that description. My message last Friday aimed to do 3 things: . publicize that the transition team is (nothing more than) aware of some ongoing CNRI-NeuStar negotiations . provide a list of expected operational guidelines for secretariat services in 2005, irrespective of provider . observe that, from informal discussions we've had so far, and given other factors (e.g., continuity), we (the transition team) can envision a future where it would be a reasonable thing to engage in a contract with NeuStar-post-CNRI-deal that would live up to those operational guidelines. But the proof is still in the pudding: we (IETF in general, TT in particular) have not seen so much as a draft of a proposed contract for 2005 Secretariat services, from anyone. It is our anticipation that the order of operations would be: 1. a contract will be proposed, and negotiated by the IAD 2. if such negotiations lead to a final contract that is consistent with those guidelines (including ability to apply performance review), we have an option to pursue 3. if said negotiations do not yield such a contract, or if no such contract proposal appears reasonably soon, the IASA (on behalf of the IETF) is going to have to strike out and develop an independent RFP process if it is to meet the requirements of the BCP. Given Bob Kahn's recent message, I think people reading this list will understand that there would likely be resistance from CNRI to point #3. I personally believe we *all* benefit from making #2 work (including the requirement that the contract moves us beyond where we have been for the last N years with Secretariat, and is in line with what the IASA is supposed to be about). But we are still talking about work that *will* have to be done (negotiating) -- there are no secrets to be exposed from backrooms in terms of deals cut already. At least, not that I am aware of! Leslie. John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John writes: ... snip a lot .. I'd rather either * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we are really ready to move forward with its provisions. The first of those options would, of course, respond to my question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do it. It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Absolutely. But there have been several suggestions that Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead with the deal. If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely dragged out. In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal. Or they might gu
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Hi John, At 12:10 PM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: Recognizing the textual problem that Margaret identified and moving back to intent, sooner or later the IAD and IAOC need to decide whether or not to issue one or more competitive RFPs for some or all of the secretariat functions. My understanding of the intent of the community was that we finish up the BCP, we get the IAOC and IAD in place, and then we get those RFPs written and issued on a relatively expeditious basis, certainly within six to nine months. I'll add that it was my understanding that we formed the IASA-TT so that we could get a head-start on defining the structure of the administrative support activity, issuing RFPs and starting the search for an IAD. The IASA-TT seems to have done well on the third item, and from their web page it appears that they have undertaken some work on the first item. Hopefully they will not be distracted from this path by talk of the CNRI/Neustar deal. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( Yes. We seem to have been moving rather steadily in that direction... This is probably the result of basing our work on a draft (that I wrote) that was largely intended to describe the corporate organization of the IETF administrative support function. Most of the other informraiton in Carl's draft (including how we should handle our contract negotiations) was (at least IMO) okay with both the Scenario C and Scenario O camps and, as a result, has been omitted from the BCP document. And, yes, I do think we should do something to fix it... Perhaps we could review Carl's original draft (which may have expired by now, but I am sure we can find it) and identify sections that we think should be brought over into the IASA BCP? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John writes: >> >> > ... snip a lot .. > >> I'd rather either >> >> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give >> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, >> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that >> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do >> not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or >> >> * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we >> are really ready to move forward with its provisions. >> >> The first of those options would, of course, respond to my >> question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: >> we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to >> do it. >> > > It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal > control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a > community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? > > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. > During that process, we are still subject to whatever > CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Absolutely. But there have been several suggestions that Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead with the deal. If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely dragged out. In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal. Or they might guarantee CRNI that they would do so as a condition the deal and permission to use the claimed IPR. Any such guarantee would not involve the IETF either, but it might pretty thoroughly cripple any attempt to implement the BCP as it stands (or will stand soon). john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 18:02 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott writes >> >> > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place >> > (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then >> > starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process >> > can start. >> >> the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* >> premature) if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract >> > Gets an "N-year" contract with whom? > We are not part of the deal between CNRI/Neustar, are we? > Not according to what I understood of the posting! Bert, Recognizing the textual problem that Margaret identified and moving back to intent, sooner or later the IAD and IAOC need to decide whether or not to issue one or more competitive RFPs for some or all of the secretariat functions. My understanding of the intent of the community was that we finish up the BCP, we get the IAOC and IAD in place, and then we get those RFPs written and issued on a relatively expeditious basis, certainly within six to nine months. Now, if we are going to go ahead and do so on that basis, then Joel's comments are exactly right -- this deal has little or nothing to do with the BCP or the IETF. On the other hand, if there is a contractual deal with Neustar, or if the issuance of the RFP(s) is delayed so that we can continue doing business as usual with Foretec (under Neustar auspices or otherwise) for some longer period of time, then we are certainly part of that deal, for better or worse. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Scott writes > > > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. > > the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature) > if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract > Gets an "N-year" contract with whom? We are not part of the deal between CNRI/Neustar, are we? Not according to what I understood of the posting! Bert > I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is > is all that useful in the face of what appears to be a done deal > > Scott > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: > > Hi John, > >> The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft >> doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited >> proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP >> and at least the potential for competitive proposals against >> that RFP. > > What gives you this impression? The current IASA BCP doesn't > include the term "RFP", nor does it require any public bidding > process or specify any opportunity for the public to comment > on potential contractors before contracts are signed. The > "transparency and openness" portions of the BCP are all > after-the-fact -- financial reporting, making the contracts or > MOUs public, publishing decisions after they are made (with no > time constraints), etc. When combined with the fact that we > don't apparently have consensus that the community needs any > way to review/appeal a decision of the IAOC, the document > currently gives the IAOC full, unchecked control over the > structure of IASA and how that work is contracted. > > So, IMO, if we pass the BCP as-is, the IAOC would have the > authority to contract with Neustar to provide all of the > current IETF secretariat services. and they could probably get > away without telling us about the decision until after a > binding commitment letter is signed. I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( > Personally, I am stunned by the idea that after years of > complaining about our IT infrastructure, including the > creation of a special mailing list for the IESG to collect > details of our IT problems so that we could build a case to > change providers, the IASA TT would even consider recommending > a multi-year contract to continue receiving IT services > (e-mail and web support) from the same provider. But, I > haven't figured out if there is any forum in which I could > constructively voice my surprise... It seems to me that you are a member of the community, and that you have just found the appropriate forum. My understanding from Harald's note and other conversations is that, if Neustar understands that this idea creates a bad smell around the community, they won't go through with the deal. And, if you believe that the TT's considering this idea constitutes actual bad behavior or incompetence rather than simple poor judgment, you know how to fill out recall petitions. >> The >> potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is >> unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can >> initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and >> others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are >> likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way >> until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a >> situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved >> in that discussion would find acceptable. > > I certainly wouldn't find this acceptable. Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an issue. >> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give >> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, >> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that >> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do >> not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or > > I don't see anything in the current BCP that prevents this, or > even discourages it. See above. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
> All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature) if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is is all that useful in the face of what appears to be a done deal Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: ... All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? That depends. If Neustar is prepared to negotiate a single source contract of limited duration, then it's the terms of that contract that both sides are subject too. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
John writes: > > ... snip a lot .. > I'd rather either > > * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give > the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, > sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that > seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do > not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or > > * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we > are really ready to move forward with its provisions. > > The first of those options would, of course, respond to my > question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: > we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do > it. > It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Bert > regards, > john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: Hi John, The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP and at least the potential for competitive proposals against that RFP. What gives you this impression? The current IASA BCP doesn't include the term "RFP", nor does it require any public bidding process or specify any opportunity for the public to comment on potential contractors before contracts are signed. The "transparency and openness" portions of the BCP are all after-the-fact -- financial reporting, making the contracts or MOUs public, publishing decisions after they are made (with no time constraints), etc. When combined with the fact that we don't apparently have consensus that the community needs any way to review/appeal a decision of the IAOC, the document currently gives the IAOC full, unchecked control over the structure of IASA and how that work is contracted. So, IMO, if we pass the BCP as-is, the IAOC would have the authority to contract with Neustar to provide all of the current IETF secretariat services. and they could probably get away without telling us about the decision until after a binding commitment letter is signed. Personally, I am stunned by the idea that after years of complaining about our IT infrastructure, including the creation of a special mailing list for the IESG to collect details of our IT problems so that we could build a case to change providers, the IASA TT would even consider recommending a multi-year contract to continue receiving IT services (e-mail and web support) from the same provider. But, I haven't figured out if there is any forum in which I could constructively voice my surprise... The potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved in that discussion would find acceptable. I certainly wouldn't find this acceptable. * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or I don't see anything in the current BCP that prevents this, or even discourages it. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
John C Klensin suggested as one option: * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or I think the text Bert circulated as the resolution of Issue #788: Section 3 - Which functions should be done "in-house" allows this. It doesn't mention sole-sourcing, but it doesn't forbid it either. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:38 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > [many things, including] > >> (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably >> inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing >> Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the >> Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept >> such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in >> place? > > I simply observe that unless we stop word-smithing and get some > form of the BCP on the books really soon, this question will be > overtaken by events. If there is no IAOC in place, but a final > proposal with deadline arrives from NeuStar, somebody will have > to answer it - either the IETF Chair du jour, or the transition > team. > > So despite the seriousness of the issues you raise and those > implied by Bob Kahn's message, I would very strongly favour > declaring the BCP "good enough for now" as soon as we see > the -05 version. Some of the issues cannot be resolved and > documented at this time, IMHO. Brian, Let me suggest a different (but admittedly paranoid) way of looking at this. Suppose we forget about -05, declare -04 done and all other issues queued for a hypothetical future revision, and that the IETF signs off on -04 tomorrow and sends it off to the RFC Editor with a request to expedite publication. (I'm not suggesting that as a procedure, just as the fastest theoretical way to get this finished). So we have a BCP protocol action on Friday and, with a little effort and good will, the ISOC Board approves an appropriate resolution next week. Now let's assume that, on the 6th of February, a proposal with deadline arrives from Neustar and that it leaves all of the issues that my questions suggest might be unresolved (and all of the issues that Bob Kahn's note raises clearly unresolved). The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP and at least the potential for competitive proposals against that RFP. The potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved in that discussion would find acceptable. (And the resemblance between that situation and the one we now have with Foretec is very strong -- the only major difference that is apparent from Leslie's note is that there will be an expiration/ review date.) So, if such a proposal arrives and someone must respond to it, whomever that is, either as an individual or as a body, are going to need to go outside the bounds of the BCP and invent an ad hoc procedure, whether the BCP has been approved or not... unless, of course, the response is "no, we can't agree to this because we have no authority". It may be just a matter of aesthetics, but I don't want to see the BCP go into effect and for the first action of the IAOC to be to violate its terms. Unless I've misunderstood what is happening --and I may well misunderstand, hence all the questions-- I'd rather either * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we are really ready to move forward with its provisions. The first of those options would, of course, respond to my question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do it. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Progressing Re: Progress report......
John C Klensin wrote: [many things, including] (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in place? I simply observe that unless we stop word-smithing and get some form of the BCP on the books really soon, this question will be overtaken by events. If there is no IAOC in place, but a final proposal with deadline arrives from NeuStar, somebody will have to answer it - either the IETF Chair du jour, or the transition team. So despite the seriousness of the issues you raise and those implied by Bob Kahn's message, I would very strongly favour declaring the BCP "good enough for now" as soon as we see the -05 version. Some of the issues cannot be resolved and documented at this time, IMHO. (In superficial response to Bob's note, it seems to me that the draft BCP gives IASA the duty to handle the relevant IPR issues for the IETF and that is all we absolutely need at this time.) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
