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

John C Klensin <> Sun, 30 June 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6696A12019F; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cZ8Sq4bOMUyk; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5D1412019B; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1hhfH7-000Ax4-1b; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:14:09 -0400
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:14:04 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Bob Hinden <>, Barry Leiba <>
cc: IASA 2 WG <>, Alissa Cooper <>,,, IESG <>, Jon Peterson <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
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
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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?= <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 19:14:14 -0000

--On Sunday, 30 June, 2019 10:13 -0700 Bob Hinden
<> wrote:

> I note this text is original to RFC7437, so unless we have
> heard from a NomCom that this has causing a significant NomCom
> problem, I continue to think that we shouldn't change it as
> part of the IASA 2.0 work.

Given other clarifications and improvements that have been
deferred on the grounds that they are out of scope for the IASA2
WG, I would have said "so even if we have heard...".  

IMO, it would be entirely appropriate to file an erratum against
7437 -- the text is unquestionably hard to follow -- and then
transfer / transpose that erratum for 7437bis.  It seems to me
that one of the things some combination of document authors, the
WG co-chairs, any concerned ADs, and the RFC Editor staff should
do as soon as numbers are assigned to these IASA2 documents is
to be sure that all errata on original documents that have not
been processed and incorporated in the replacement ones are
immediately duplicated for the new ones.  And, as I have said
before, I sincerely hope that the publication of 7437bis (and
similar documents) will encourage, rather than delay, drafting
of replacements or updates to deal with those out of scope for
IASA2 issues.

Otherwise, I hope obviously, +1