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

Warren Kumari <> Fri, 05 July 2019 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955BA120133 for <>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2V6t0Lno9rDm for <>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D639E1200D5 for <>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a27so8987413qkk.5 for <>; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=78/lRf8uUTVuJOJQdeDbqWcPRKBO65dh3JaFNI25KGI=; b=KvSKwaVxErf5bPkPrTEM2FNhXhQI7jviQE7H2VDWYpNw4tRK9Es5lyxph6mwhYYuNQ DEaA+kb2uHZ9rKD3E6RSMxK/EpZNbZVO5YZwPfQQTUmzdks3qNYn6PrIUvtrsadIKgWm ZuTH8COyPYYZ8hspoX+FaJopEpe03tK9owD2AnakMzt/S5PJ2bTNmYaLZ9VbeQtXXDov ISZ5eV6rvcOBQO9mu2QIxZKZDGKDtSvdCxfKibZuPvxA7OoxCjJaRsHBdjvfF1XuOcgK ylAGjwtgk3NLHcxLe+XPm0N4KG+br9wAs7jCuPODnzDVMFnPO9dozQ5t1qtStZ6JR4GD Vahg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=78/lRf8uUTVuJOJQdeDbqWcPRKBO65dh3JaFNI25KGI=; b=l43xod+uQW7N+0E3a80NQtjstt6D0u5nhyj/pEQaQXqd8MgHuTOhOQBS8dS8PFDkt5 KXwGHuLgVt5ayihPN0KJt55bqenuEFPSytV6rt54l/wfd/2z8bwLYUCJHEexJxA9dP4x 1H9DnISE/auhTn0ujaUkCFQtVe58D1PsykiOn9ncizZJsQx4h6cCJMu/O+UKJTTbyqun ATmkmDlTxi61mVthinWcC3ZJIGwc3oevjZ9YhIbJW3NnBkwseIPstJicGCaYbhFKsMun H2sHk7Cfy1CCP3TvHxsd23lkaXIHOIa4ZBZ418kOCK2s0eMXTT42WiWKqkIihVXDNLnj xofw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVI20+Dq3hfitd96tT+KdQt5tr5w49IhxxK4qt420vwBqDKQtJ8 Rvpr6LkBLkxbhsKdjMAlElCRoSZeYVTyX4PhX080qw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYAZxYU4nOnzOATQRIw8psQCvbrrsS6S4zGVZ/xFDvd3fMNyZ+T+AKBjOcKPUp6bwZ4Yz5jog5UoP7GEx6saA=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4c92:: with SMTP id z140mr4944171qka.245.1562365790386; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: IESG <>, IASA 2 WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 22:29:54 -0000

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:41 AM Alissa Cooper <> wrote:
> Dear IESG,
> I wanted to draw your special attention to this text in draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis:
> "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.”
> As well as this text in the IASA2 WG charter:
> "This working group is chartered to document the normative changes to IETF administrative structures and processes necessary to effectuate [the change to IASA 2.0].”
> If the IESG is not going to allow draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis or other IASA2 documents to progress unless changes unrelated to IASA 2.0 are made, I think the WG needs to be rechartered.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me -- I'm holding a DISCUSS
position with some questions / clarifications, but I'm perfectly fine
to be told for any or all of them that these are outside the scope of
what the WG is chartered for / doing with this -bis.

> The authors and the WG purposefully did not make any other changes to the base documents, so making other changes as a result of IESG evaluation does not seem appropriate. I think the appropriate thing to do would be for ADs who want to see that happen to start a thread about re-chartering on the iasa20 list. (Note: this is not my preference since I suspect it will delay the minimal changes related to IASA 2.0 from being published for a long time, but if that’s what the community wants I’ll support it.)

Fair 'nuff -- but (for me at least) I don't think that my questions /
requests for clarification count as substantive changes. If others do,
I'm perfectly fine to clear them, etc.

> Thanks,
> Alissa

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.