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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

+1

On 10/21/18 10:39 AM, Scott Bradner wrote:
> +1
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2018, at 12:11 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> 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
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Scott O. Bradner <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On Sunday, October 21, 2018 10:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
>>>>> <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>