Re: [Iasa20] Odd deprecations in draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-05

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-02-13 10:30, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Robert,
> 
>     3929 has no explicit time limit, which these days is considered bad
>     practice for procedural experiments. So yes, it isn't this WG's
>     job to decide. But the IETF can of course decide. If it's clear
>     that this is subject to Last Call comments, is there really a problem?
> 
> I don't see how the lack of experimental deadline makes it this WG's job to decide--can you clarify your thinking?  

I agree entirely - please re-read my sentence, whose syntax could be improved ;-).

> In this document's case, it is hard to call the experiment done when it has never been exercised.  We can say that the threat of it has been useful, but that the actual methods are "not proven" (in the Scots legal sense).

Yes. But if we (the IETF, not this WG) want that threat to continue, surely "experimental" is the wrong status?
  
> My take on why they were included was more that they included the phrase "IETF Executive Director"; the doc says that specific methods require telling the IETF Executive Director something (e.g. that you volunteer to serve).  The working group concluded that this didn't mean the new Executive Director, but meant the Secretariat role that used that term before.  I personally would fix that with an erratum, rather than deprecation or obsolescence.

That's a perfectly defensible position, which is why I suggested calling this out explicitly in IETF Last Call. 
 
> I may, of course, have a slight bias here.

Regardless of that, I think we're agreeing that it isn't this WG's job to decide, but it probably *is* our job to point out the obsolete terminology.

Regards,
    Brian
 
> Ted