Re: [Iasa20] WGLC: RFC 7776-bis (oops)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

On 3/30/19 3:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Well, we can do this.
> It is a bit ugly because 7776 updates 7437.
> So what we end up with is an I-D going into the RFC Editor Queue with a planned update to an I-D going into the RFC Editor Queue at the same time.
> 
> Just as a reminder, while 7437bis is a full replacement for (i.e., obsoletes) 7437, 7776bis is only a minor delta (i.e., updates) 7776.
> 
> I completely understand the notion of "this document is only open to make the IASA2.0 changes" but maybe this could be cleaner?
>  
> I will update my working copy of 7776bis to show the update to the work in progress, but if you or the WG prefer that we clean this up, I am happy to discuss doing different.
> 

While I am replying to this note, I have read the later replies and this
text seems the most logical to respond to...

I would support having 7437bis take on the responsibility of fixing the
text that 7776bis is currently trying to fix in 7437. It is silly to
have an active -bis document updating another active -bis document. The
gyrations needed to follow that logic will make it extremely difficult
for any new reader of those documents to follow along.

Let's do the right thing here.

Regards,
Brian