Re: [Iasa20] Odd deprecations in draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-05

--On Monday, March 4, 2019 13:07 -0800 Ted Hardie
<ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:04 PM John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
>> Alissa,
>> 
>> Excellent.   Do you (and/or Ted if he is reading this) have
>> any preference as to whether I post a new draft in the next
>> several hours with an appropriate note to the RFC Editor or
>> just wait until Thursday in the hope of an IAB action and
>> specific instructions about what text to put in?   It makes
>> little difference to me; I'd prefer to do whatever is easiest
>> for the others (IESG, IAB, RFC Editor) involved.
>> 
>> 
> As a follow-up to Alissa's note I proposed very simple text
> for inclusion. If you wait until Thursday, we may have the
> text.  Easy enough to update post-facto, of course, if you
> would rather prioritize getting this afterwards.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted

Ted,
Many thanks.  I'll wait.
   john

>> --On Monday, March 4, 2019 15:38 -0500 Alissa Cooper
>> <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> > I have asked to add this to the agenda for the IAB call on
>> > Wednesday, March 6.
>> > 
>> > Alissa
>> > 
>> >> On Mar 2, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>> On 2 Mar 2019, at 18:22, John C Klensin
>> >>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> Eliot and IAB members who are following this,
>> >>> 
>> >>> If the IAB is willing to commit to that RSN, I'll fix the
>> >>> document accordingly.
>> >> 
>> >> I think this way is simpler and cleaner.
>> >> 
>> >>> I'd prefer to not hold up IESG review on
>> >>> this matter or to find time to generate extra drafts so,
>> >>> if a quick IAB commitment is not possible, I suggest I
>> >>> fix the document as Heather and Jason have suggested but
>> >>> encourage the RFC Editor to treat the comment about IAB
>> >>> action as if it were a normative reference, i.e.,
>> >>> assuming the IESG actually approves this I-D for
>> >>> publication, they don't actually publish until the IAB's
>> >>> preferences are clear and then, if necessary, we do a
>> >>> touch-up on the document during AUTH48 with confidence
>> >>> that the WG's intent is perfectly clear.
>> >> 
>> >> Yeah, if the RFC Editor doesn't mind, you can put text in
>> >> like, [Note to RFC Editor: IAB to fill in their statement
>> >> here.]
>> >> 
>> >> I also realize that I shouldn't have proposed specific
>> >> text. That was a bit forward of me.  The IAB should just
>> >> consider that a sample that could get the job done.
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Does that work for everyone?
>> >> 
>> >> WFM, noting above.
>> >> 
>> >> Eliot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> iasa20 mailing list
>> >> iasa20@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> iasa20@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>> 