Re: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2418bis-01.txt

+1

> On Oct 21, 2018, at 12:11 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I don't think Scott suggested a consolidated update to all of
> these documents.  Having started this thread, I certainly
> didn't.   If there is a substantive reason to rework a document,
> by all means do that... especially if the scope of the original
> document is very narrow.  However, if the only change that is
> required to a given document simple substitution, especially in
> one place and especially if the document has very broad scope,
> let's try to find a way to do a narrow update rather than
> replacing/obsoleting the document.
> 
> Like Scott, I hope that could be done by a single document that
> draws all of the trivial updates together.  But, if it cannot, I
> believe we would be far better off with, using 2418 as an
> example, with a one (substantive)-paragraph RFC changing the job
> title rather than issuing a new, supposedly-complete, document
> and obsoleting the original one.  That also minimizes the risk
> of unintended consequences.  Or, while I had forgotten until
> Rich's note caused me to review the history of 2418, for these
> trivial cases, we could simply follow the POISSON/RFC Editor
> precedent, treat the change of title as a simple editorial
> matter, record it in an erratum identified as "save for
> revision", and move on.  
> 
> If one wants to minimize the amount of community effort spent
> per unit improvement, the latter is almost certainly the right
> option for those simple cases.
> 
>  best,
>     john
> 
> --On Sunday, October 21, 2018 08:39 -0700 Bob Hinden
> <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Scott,
>> 
>>> On Oct 20, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> sure seems a lot more efficient to just have one short RFC
>>> instead of a bunch of RFCs that wind up changing well known
>>> RFC #s for almost no meaningful changes - i
>> 
>> I think it depends on the document.   While there are some
>> that could be handled this way, others are more complicated.
>> For example, Jason and I are working on RFC7437bis " IAB,IESG,
>> and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
>> Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees".
>> That's gotten more complicated because the IETF Trust
>> Trustees and LLC Directors are being (partially) selected by
>> the NomCom under the IASA2.0 work.  The changes are not, for
>> example, s/IAOC/LLC/.  There are other changes that make sense
>> like having the chairs communicate direclty with the NomCom
>> instead it going through the IETF Executive Director (now
>> called Managing Director, IETF Secretariat).  Now starting to
>> look at bringing in the Ombudsman changes from RFC7776.
>> 
>> I suspect we are going to have the new ISAS 2 model for a
>> while, good to get this right where it matters.
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>>> 
>>> (never mind having to change training documents to point to
>>> the changed RFC numbers)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 20, 2018, at 5:27 PM, John C Klensin
>>>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --On Sunday, October 21, 2018 10:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
>>>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> fwiw I agree. There is no reference to IASA in 2418, for
>>>>> obvious reasons.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From a practical point of view, any terminology issue could
>>>>> be handled
>>>>> as an erratum with disposition "wait for update".
>>>> 
>>>> That, IMO, would be an even better solution than creating an
>>>> updating document that says "any time earlier documents say
>>>> 'IETF Executive Director' replace it with..." and similar
>>>> things and then hunting down the relevant documents and
>>>> marking them as updated.
>>>> 
>>>> Depending on how compulsive the WG and relevant AD are
>>>> feeling, I think either would work.  But we really have
>>>> better ways to spend our time than replacing a process
>>>> document to change a title... or at least I hope we do.
>>>> 
>>>> Frankly, the only good reason I can see for generating all of
>>>> these IASA2 documents just to change terminology is to create
>>>> enough noise that the community doesn't notice and pay
>>>> attention to changes that actually might be controversial.
>>>> I trust and assume that is not the intent of anyone involved.
>>>> 
>>>>  john
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>> iasa20@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>