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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 05 July 2019 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F89C12010D; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dr7LkbCED7gH; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 767F21200EF; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s27so4740052pgl.2; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LSJ2jBug/huKI5pFkX4NWX1ofGhfuW4a1FU6vBql3qI=; b=cnJg/HHgOQq1Unbcz9zdjllGcvkcwkCPQv/O32wf0OYJNg3Ou32sAm+DB0mfaKidpX BdUybXZwbZcUoSlY+5b1JzLSDzrmGvQl2G8/cXl6LOzbPD/k0krTdlYUOamep7k2pQ7/ DpCNEQZA7y0l7Wo2JfsF57azaP1kSb01vsMXgHYJzPPuVyCvTEXb6/Cis331gYlwxaN3 1fsOiAV9Uoue1rohtuvvwdzJO+eiFERwF2JPP7NX6IstHejLWUbU29IVvZ5G1jSMxi0X 8Pzf9Muy9DH/CxyM2Nvbn7EMFz6Ody3hI36kPm0hiuKvBhiO6avIQoi+/xAEFVayGPBt zj9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LSJ2jBug/huKI5pFkX4NWX1ofGhfuW4a1FU6vBql3qI=; b=PGzjPXHiPBSqIAQoLxslgR1DFiJMXZkUjx0OfG5q0+g95J0Lxf5YiDD/ZrRyOSSJm3 m7UuRgRx70v9DZzY1EWAeBSBFGe8OJTtx6+pyvTA4f4ZYSa3/Z/9Ko3FLFioDBM//QbD gSijgttVbK+eGKE/7o/SH7+SZLpfTIf2iP51hexpMnu2EdgxBwfIxiNBCvA+VXHbkVun JFm+zCuqJPydbObzD86tkpQnCmY3UqPJGgbdbKo3Pnd9aCuKgAIi73IbdC8C+v0fRGNH 1CRtTUenASfBrZBEsWPtm8+EzkKy7jDHSNWbJ5Aoefn/j1drAvYilzb0Xyq703sSwiyg 8Q7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWc+aQ+azvGBNGOPaKYkIzxVwAgBqAmwKyr42frkyQdEvEkuf+K qNVraWCp9Ty6BViay5nxZxvBix4I
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqym3o93DvztfzeCKjlzrU7EwtomELnbIQCm+E1aPm8gc91fs7F7Sb/l6NDUa2PGsrs2RrDzfg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ab01:: with SMTP id m1mr7400289pjq.69.1562357457598; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id b26sm11743592pfo.129.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alissa Cooper <>, IESG <>
Cc: IASA 2 WG <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:10:53 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 20:11:01 -0000

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 for example.

   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