Re: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-06

Hi Brian,

> On Mar 7, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 08-Mar-19 06:12, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Thanks. I still don’t think this is quite right because there is no basis for this working group to obsolete or render historic RFC 3929 simply because it mentions the IETF Executive Director. It seems that RFC 3929 should be treated in Section 2 the same as the other documents in that section.
> 
> There's a more general issue: tracking down all "open" Experimental RFCs and deciding which of them need to be closed off as Historic or Obsolete or both. <joke>No doubt the IESG will be doing this in its copious free time.</joke> But for the present, doesn't it make more sense to clear both 3929 and 4633 up right away? I agree that it's outside the WG's mandate, strictly interpreted, but if the IESG consents, is that really a problem?

Yes. The point of charters is to scope working groups’ work. This working group is chartered to to document the normative changes to IETF administrative structures and processes necessary to effectuate the change to IASA 2.0. Obsoleting documents about other things because they are out of date is not within the charter.

Alissa

> 
>    Brian
> 
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 1:52 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi.
>>> 
>>> draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-06 should be posted in a few
>>> minutes.  I hope this version reflects changes requested since
>>> -05 was posted at the end of January.  In particular, it
>>> reflects the suggestions from the RFC Editor and the  separate
>>> status of the RFC 3716 as an IAB document and the text supplied
>>> by Alissa in her note yesterday.
>>> 
>>> The bad news is that when I read Section 4 after patching those
>>> changes in, it was just too convoluted and I had to restructure
>>> and rewrite it.  I hope the changes are at least tolerable to
>>> everyone and that I didn't make mistakes that would require
>>> another iteration.  Of course, if I did and problems are
>>> spotted, I'll be happy to that.  
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, if the language reflects the WG's intent
>>> sufficiently well but some of my phrasing doesn't line up with
>>> the needs of the IAB or RFC Editor, I recommend that we attach
>>> appropriate notes and let them sort it out with each
>>> other and the IESG if needed on AUTH48 rather than trying to
>>> make small editorial changes by committee nit-picking.   Just my
>>> preference, of course, YMMD.
>>> 
>>>   john
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>> iasa20@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> iasa20@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> 
> 