[Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue
"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Fri, 19 October 2018 21:38 UTC
Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24B3130DF4; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xddZxqHUi2Ek; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C69130DEB; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8582B6B29A42; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:38:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYts5aX4p-8P; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:38:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.76] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D5856B29A37; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:38:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:38:19 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12r5523)
Message-ID: <8F025819-6D43-4D09-858E-0866532FEBDC@episteme.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/fTqTDor12-yD2rEa3_P-TxqSEYY>
Subject: [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called IASA 2.0 project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 21:38:26 -0000
IASA 2.0 folks: With my mtgvenue chair hat on: An issue has come up over in mtgvenue that I think really needs to be resolved by iasa20, and in particular not by the mtgvenue folks alone. The Venue Selection document, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/>, refers to "IASA" throughout. When written, the document presumed that we were working under IASA 1.0, and had references to RFC 4071. When our documents got to AUTH48, we realized that it was going to come out right on the heels of the IASA 2.0 docs and that it would be silly to publish only to have to turn around and fix things. The initial suggestion in mtgvenue was to pretty much do a global replace of "IASA" with "IETF LLC" (with some other editorial changes). The document editor's version with those edits is here: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8491-auth48diff.html>. However, a few folks (and in particular, folks who are active in iasa20) noted that in fact "IASA" was correct, because under IASA 2.0, the LLC is under IASA, and that using "LLC" might be incorrect in some instances. Conversely, some folks thought that "LLC" was a clearer reference. As that discussion has evolved, your faithful mtgvenue chair is no longer sure that we've gotten this exactly right. On top of that, Alissa has indicated that it's probably better to have iasa20 figure out what terminology is appropriate to refer to the assorted entities, for the sake of all documents, not just mtgvenue's. So, I would ask that the iasa20 WG review the above two documents and let us know whether we've got it right or wrong, and generally let us know which terminology should be used in which circumstances. I'm sure mtgvenue folks will pipe up with their concerns, but guidance should really be coming from a discussion in iasa20. BTW: Don't worry about the fact that the document is in AUTH48 or whether it will need a new Last Call or whatever. Let's get the document correct first, and then we'll figure out what process knobs, lights, and buttons need to be operated. Cheers, pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best
- [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue Pete Resnick
- Re: [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Iasa20] [Mtgvenue] Terminology issue in mtgv… Eliot Lear