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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 6:29 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:41 AM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is directed at me -- I'm holding a DISCUSS

Not specifically. I wanted to have the conversation with everyone.

Looks like we’re moving in a good direction with the abstract.

Thanks,
Alissa

> position with some questions / clarifications, but I'm perfectly fine
> to be told for any or all of them that these are outside the scope of
> what the WG is chartered for / doing with this -bis.
> 
> 
>> 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.)
> 
> Fair 'nuff -- but (for me at least) I don't think that my questions /
> requests for clarification count as substantive changes. If others do,
> I'm perfectly fine to clear them, etc.
> W
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf