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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/poisson/about/ 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.

Thanks,
Bob


> 
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20