Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 05 September 2019 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54811120801; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 00:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=bc4KoVW8; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=ZYb/1M0t
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RHuNKLI-9_om; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 00:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD63120020; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 00:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x857gO1w017061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 00:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1567669358; x=1567755758; bh=Wbg7D5VUP7hxn03ZIBzYlHboDuvMYOQ9d3AZF9XunBI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bc4KoVW8gGLs3PBJa4jzpFVBjxgj71Si14t5ZC5zyH5Wk7QN4N5cKQevkFmGDlFXb jdiZ/zxusTJFBjF361W7H7zad95iwGz/kDgvknmMujgMTgbQfsJ9Cqu2JTj/3bjKcf oqa42A4uAUPrjNJY2ly/zwOP84akwkfcc9vg3/vA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1567669358; x=1567755758;; bh=Wbg7D5VUP7hxn03ZIBzYlHboDuvMYOQ9d3AZF9XunBI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZYb/1M0thBn0lsF2rxSJtNwzviXjfVF+EQNiGf75TQE1F0+WI2asdR/mvK+aFNccj nLZfWCrWSELxqn0dTmUfkncQg2+CeEjx2HnEC5d1bSaxZAXa3qMac0jot4ooJFu6C4 oxqVIq5uMORjegdul3wcCTP0L6HbwaFUCvh/Mu8c=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:38:06 -0700
To: Magnus Westerlund <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 07:42:47 -0000

Hi Magnus,
At 07:07 AM 04-09-2019, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
>I don't understand why not a replacement for RFC7776 was produced instead of
>this soup that is not readable. Publishing this in this form is providing very
>mixed messages to the community where we (IESG) apparently are aiming for
>readability and ease of comparing older and newer documents, but can't be
>bothered to ensure that is produced when it comes to the process documents.
>Also RFC 7776 appears to be very self contained and with removal of content
>that will be even more true.

I took a look at draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02.  The document is 
equivalent the difference between two text files.  That difference, 
also known as a "patch", is in general not easily understood.

As a comment about procedures, the DISCUSS criteria is not ideally 
suited for non-technical documents.  There was an interesting comment 
[1] during the Last Call.  The comment was likely not addressed as it 
was not listed as an issue.

Several months ago [2], I provided a pointer to the RFC 7776 
procedures.  I'll probably do the same in future, if the need arises, 
as I don't think that a person who is not familiar with the arcanes 
of the IETF would understand this draft.

S. Moonesamy