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

The IAB would support this note appearing in the draft:

"The IAB approved a proposal to move RFC 3716 to Historic on March 6, 2019.”

This will be reflected in the minutes from today’s IAB meeting.

Alissa

> On Mar 4, 2019, at 4:14 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, March 4, 2019 13:07 -0800 Ted Hardie
> <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:04 PM John C Klensin
>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> 
>>> Excellent.   Do you (and/or Ted if he is reading this) have
>>> any preference as to whether I post a new draft in the next
>>> several hours with an appropriate note to the RFC Editor or
>>> just wait until Thursday in the hope of an IAB action and
>>> specific instructions about what text to put in?   It makes
>>> little difference to me; I'd prefer to do whatever is easiest
>>> for the others (IESG, IAB, RFC Editor) involved.
>>> 
>>> 
>> As a follow-up to Alissa's note I proposed very simple text
>> for inclusion. If you wait until Thursday, we may have the
>> text.  Easy enough to update post-facto, of course, if you
>> would rather prioritize getting this afterwards.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Ted
> 
> Ted,
> Many thanks.  I'll wait.
>   john
> 
> 
>>> --On Monday, March 4, 2019 15:38 -0500 Alissa Cooper
>>> <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have asked to add this to the agenda for the IAB call on
>>>> Wednesday, March 6.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2 Mar 2019, at 18:22, John C Klensin
>>>>>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Eliot and IAB members who are following this,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the IAB is willing to commit to that RSN, I'll fix the
>>>>>> document accordingly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this way is simpler and cleaner.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd prefer to not hold up IESG review on
>>>>>> this matter or to find time to generate extra drafts so,
>>>>>> if a quick IAB commitment is not possible, I suggest I
>>>>>> fix the document as Heather and Jason have suggested but
>>>>>> encourage the RFC Editor to treat the comment about IAB
>>>>>> action as if it were a normative reference, i.e.,
>>>>>> assuming the IESG actually approves this I-D for
>>>>>> publication, they don't actually publish until the IAB's
>>>>>> preferences are clear and then, if necessary, we do a
>>>>>> touch-up on the document during AUTH48 with confidence
>>>>>> that the WG's intent is perfectly clear.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, if the RFC Editor doesn't mind, you can put text in
>>>>> like, [Note to RFC Editor: IAB to fill in their statement
>>>>> here.]
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also realize that I shouldn't have proposed specific
>>>>> text. That was a bit forward of me.  The IAB should just
>>>>> consider that a sample that could get the job done.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Does that work for everyone?
>>>>> 
>>>>> WFM, noting above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eliot
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>>>> iasa20@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>> iasa20@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20