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

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 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.

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
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> 