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

Bob Hinden <> Fri, 05 July 2019 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39941120118; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 yPIkqDngVEmP; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA151200D6; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z23so10841193wma.4; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Irh97Qywu9hPPaNpRosTVpsZGzqBDYxDv4/qjYz9yeg=; b=YRKUX2a7pHHtV34yMaXR+fUJDtNJpP+xLLDfVhXT4UfKRzGVRZ0yjh3GACw1fGD2fg /Gx0+YhKZn/4TfDTLMKje+UKBMkl2F5F6UPCCwPi8yMBQoWZWtmkqXhtVS8uMzbSr9/R kxvf7cjIGlltyEbm4qwG/GzCwYOytxKTKgS/7qX/c8RDCQFrITuwi4afME23PVQQKfk6 TKNCSETkI4KrfLfcf5ZwEGo/dgdWowm+U+GMyXRfW5i5MyIqxCsArkmfHtLaKh8gCEmu vvfkxHxktokcSVL81FiIgCvqLaiP9Y3UT0DBhpEaYO+p8qJA1U/UJpKM2AH2PlJ0B/kk FIFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Irh97Qywu9hPPaNpRosTVpsZGzqBDYxDv4/qjYz9yeg=; b=X+heh3+T+x6t33hHBeUs12VmYOToQb0G5Hg8+xk9AdICBAVJTsVInDn/kLP0aQXgbz +gcsFIf+4OdDhNEI9wqQPktmhnYieekpvIkGeUPdLAHIosJlGlNMS2JogeL/TtNZDlZI Xpnf90k6NkA3SGX1Fn6AI9fUbLbIM+GPmFnF5Nm6kObPyPiGyH1iiZoInyOHGk4nvCmY CqptMngZyIRQF6P+dAVMK6cLrBk9wnVDizP0YeSSrkbp0aSlEYGO+u6aKzyF7irZv63g SuXZfpakGMWO9D7nVdNtdaiM9pou7b8PhGfcLgfaHfGp4QIBd2BuQ+fA19GFoLNIm4W5 N8nQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXTVL7BUCdiwLgiKR9cC5qC7mpqu6+0ao7+KN0UWjnpP/dYoLCP x6UoCll4VQ2Kroq+TLdG27k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzlj0ICp5UDqCxYFiRMnFkSzCRayqshVUaf/5iO9YmDwiae9xkix0pVxkvydJAr6pJ9zt4NRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:5f09:: with SMTP id t9mr4898191wmb.112.1562359434029; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:2d02:9ccc:1260:97d7? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:2d02:9ccc:1260:97d7]) by with ESMTPSA id e7sm9328128wmd.0.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_63BB4D0B-1AE3-4FD4-B7F3-E702D01DF854"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:43:49 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Alissa Cooper <>, IESG <>, IASA 2 WG <>
To: Brian Carpenter <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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 20:43:58 -0000


> On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> I'm with Alissa on this. There are quite a lot of reasons why we
> might need RFC7437bisbis, some of which are much more serious than
> the various points raised by several ADs, but I believe we should
> first wrap up the changes required by the creation of IETF LLC.

I agree.  Especially since we have a working LLC signing contracts for us, spending money, etc, etc.  The IETF process documents like RFC7437 need to be aligned as soon a possible.

> I don't think rechartering IASA2 for this purpose would be
> appropriate at all. Starting a process that might lead to a new
> version of the POISED, POISED95 or POISSON WG would seem more suitable.
> See for example.

I also agree.  Making changes to the NomCom process needs a new w.g. focused on that.   That is not the focus on the IASA 2.0 w.g., nor should it be.


> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> On 06-Jul-19 06:41, 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. 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.)
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list