Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

> On Jul 7, 2019, at 9:46 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [Clearing all previous comments as they are not really relevant to the text below]
> 
> Alissa, thank you for framing the discussion. I now understand Bob's reply to my COMMENTs "out of scope" that I failed to understand to be honest.
> 
> While I now understand that we need to "upgrade" RFC 7437 as soon as possible to accommodate the new structure; I share Warren's concerns: I am not comfortable of saying "no objection" with COMMENTs that won't be addressed at all (not to mention some DISCUSSs).
> 
> If everyone thinks that:
> 1) let's deliver ASAP RFC7437bis with a "simple relifting" to accommodate the new structure
> 2) later let's redo it with a more refined content
> 
> Then, I have no problem EXCEPT that the following sentence is rather vague, not binding and not very visible (esp for a BCP):
>   "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0;
>   should the community agree on other changes, they will be addressed
>   in future documents."
> 
> I would strongly prefer a clear hint / requirement to have more work to be done on RFC 7437ter or at least having this 'limited scope' in the front abstract.

I think adding text to the abstract is fine.  How about something like this:

   The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, some Trustees
   of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the IETF LLC are selected,
   confirmed, and recalled is specified in this document.  This document
   is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to only reflect the
   changes introduced by IASA 2.0.  Any other changes will be addressed in
   future documents.

BTW, if we do an RFC7437bisbis, I am willing to be the document editor.

Thanks,
Bob

> 
> Regards and thanks to the authors & WG participants,
> 
> -éric
> 
> 
> 
>