Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, John.

> > FWIW I think I finally understood what was bothering Barry and
> > I think this tweak does express what the drafters of RFC7437
> > thought they were saying. So this would be a confirmed erratum
> > on RFC7437, if that was where we were in the process. It's
> > above my pay grade to decide whether we should handle it now
> > or wait for RFC7437bisbis.
> >
> > John Klensin's subsequent message would be a substantive
> > change of intent, IMHO. I'm not sure how I feel about it.
>
> I'm actually not sure how I feel about it either.  I am,
> however, fairly certain it was a scenario that was not actively
> discussed when 7437 was being discussed and approved.  However,
> the bottom line to me is that either
>
> * we have general consensus that the sentences in the document
> mean what the above (and Barry's suggested revised text) say it
> means.  In that case, the clarification is not urgent and can
> wait until we get around to doing a comprehensive revision of
> 7437bis.

I'm sure it was not actively discussed with respect to 7437, because
the text came there directly from 3777.  It likely *was* discussed
then, because it was added at that time.  Possibly Jim Galvin
remembers, so maybe I'll ask him.  I can't find mailing list archives
of the former "nomcom" working group, which produced 3777.

I don't agree that it's not urgent; to the extent that we can say that
anything here is really *urgent*: I think it's urgent that we make the
text say what the intent is, and fix it if it's not clear.  The
alternative, as I see it, is to remove the exception for now and
revisit it later.  (Note that I am NOT suggesting that, except as an
alternative to clarification; I think that having unclear text is
what's bad.)

Why, John, If we agree on what the intent is, do you not think it's
urgent to clarify it?  At the very least, it provides a baseline for
discussion of changes later.

> or
>
> * we don't have that level of agreement on what the sentence
> means, in which case there is no clarification in our
> traditional sense but a substantive decision followed by, or
> associated with, text to reflect that decision and make it
> perfectly clear.  In that case, it is unambiguously out of scope
> for IANA2 documents given both the decisions that have been made
> by WG Chairs and the AD and rules applied to other documents on
> that WG's menu.

I think that if we don't have agreement on what it means, we should
either remove it or flag it as problematic and not to be used until
it's clarified later.

I understand the scenario you laid out, which might lead someone to
put her name in for the vacated position when she didn't put it in for
the IAB during the initial call.  Notwithstanding that, I do think,
now, that this is what the exception was meant to be for.

I'm off to ping Jim Galvin now....

Barry