[Iasa20] WGs and scope restrictions (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7A6120170; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DTiPtc0TEbu; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4D3120106; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1hkrQV-000CH7-0e; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:49:03 -0400
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:48:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IASA 2 WG <iasa20@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <4D31BD857B6D970A7451245D@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <130BEDC3-AD1A-41D9-8A3C-82066450B376@cable.comcast.com>
References: <156141779186.17522.6942767062911073521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C131171-0ABE-4DB1-BEB7-03E765B1E6C6@cooperw.in> <CALaySJKHut1EL_eKQ5rhSXFeF6_+EizwcHdhxhieRy3D3dzQwg@mail.gmail.com> <F15F78D3-2257-4F1B-B832-D9C7CC47E512@gmail.com> <CALaySJK+=W6FwMcHJ-nuyZFmvukMN_GUh6qDAWvwHnizyZqy9A@mail.gmail.com> <4710C519-37CC-4586-83E7-02776889370F@gmail.com> <CALaySJ+1q4jrFk9+g=kwk86Lc=GMpFniFWXoNYsidOL6F_uZag@mail.gmail.com> <cc578052-6be1-6a5a-f05f-2bf38d3210dc@gmail.com> <CALaySJ+64zmmbtYy4P+ke9q78MdrKitDCNk=8ErtoD7HzeLY_Q@mail.gmail.com> <09C83635-DC7B-47BD-999D-2E6D0BBCA68F@cooperw.in> <CALaySJJsgj0cVu3oWU-=1MVeWooKiRpZ7XRpjhpnQALrmam+Ag@mail.gmail.com> <7257b4a9-1d7f-ced2-08fb-0a7bf33e1036@gmail.com> <B2AD2AADD838CCA85DCDF3FE@PSB> <130BEDC3-AD1A-41D9-8A3C-82066450B376@cable.comcast.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/86439ybh37y-OprjnGJYKAeVoNU>
Subject: [Iasa20] WGs and scope restrictions (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?iso-8859-1?q?Discussions_relating_to_reorganising_the_IETF_administrative_structures_in_the_so_called_=93IASA_2=2E0=94_project=2E?= <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:49:07 -0000

(changing the subject line in case this starts a branch thread
-- although I hope it won't)

--On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 14:00 +0000 "Livingood, Jason"
<Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:

> On 7/8/19, 8:39 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>    If there is a lesson from this for the future, it is that
>>    there
>     are distinct downsides to telling a WG that it is expected
> to     produce documents that replace older ones but are not
> allowed to     fix known errors or other difficulties with
> those earlier ones.
> 
> +1
> This is indeed a good lesson-learned. It seemed to be the only
> way to get the WG approved at the time, but in retrospect I
> hope current & future leaders that approve WGs will bear this
> in mind. 

I think that, in planning for the future, it is scope statements
to the effect of "nothing other than fixing X" that are the
problem.   Ones that focus a WG on a particular topic may still
be reasonable if they allow for (and, IMO) preferably encourage)
fixing known bugs and making obvious clarifications in documents
being revised.  In retrospect, if there was an error this time,
it was in treating excluding everything not directly required by
the IASA2 changes as the only alternative to opening up large
cans of worms.  

IMO, we ought to have been able to accommodate the changes Barry
proposed and others or similar nature, including several that
were proposed while the IASA2 documents were under development.
In the past, we've managed to accommodate such changes by a
liberal and flexible interpretation of WG charters, but that was
obviously unworkable in this case.   My objection to doing so
now is only because it seems unreasonable to me to exclude the
possibility of a type of change in the WG that develops a
document only to have IESG members make changes very similar
changes to those that were blocked in the WG and make them after
Last Call closes. 

Adam, I don't know what else, if anything, you intend to do with
your bis-documents I-D, but the above seems to me to be quite
relevant to it.

best,
   john