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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

John:

>>> 3716 [...] is just an old Informational on how we used
>>> to administer the IETF, so it needs to go.
>> 
>> Really, I do not agree.  RFC 3716 is the report of a committee
>> formed by the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair at the time.  It is
>> informational, and it was used as inout to develop other BCP
>> process documents.  What does it even mean to deprecate such a
>> committee report?
> 
> We have another meaning for that term, which is related to
> terminology appropriate to Applicability Statements and what
> would presumably be a "good idea while it lasted but it didn't
> work out or was OBE" subcategory of "Not Recommended".   We use
> A/S documents so infrequently as to forget they exist, but that
> does not make it desirable to make them less useful.   I have no
> idea what it means to deprecate a process document, whether a
> committee report or not -- the procedure is in effect or it is
> not in effect.   Unfortunately, we seem to have a category of
> "in effect but usually or always ignored" too, but that doesn't
> affect deprecation either.
> 
> On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that this report
> is Historic, at least in the sense that it is of interest to
> those who are trying to understand how we got here but that we'd
> be very concerned if someone cane along today and wanted to
> reference it normatively as an authority.
> 
> The question then becomes how to do that.  In principle, the
> IESG can do it by a Last Call and action in the tracker and
> metadata.    Would this document be a decent reference for such
> an action and could approving it eliminate the need for an extra
> IETF LC?  I think "yes"; YMMD.  Whether that is appropriate
> and/or optimal or not is another question.   If people think it
> isn't and separate action is appropriate, that is fine with me
> as long as the IESG agrees to process it as Historic.   If they
> don't want to do that or don't consider it a high priority, then
> I think a comment in this document to the effect that the
> Executive Director being referred to is the older function
> rather than the new one is in order, is part of the price we pay
> for reusing the term with a different meaning, and part of the
> WG's mandate to clean up side-effects of the IASA transition.
> Whether the phrasing in the I-D is optimal for that is, again,
> another question but those who conclude it isn't are encouraged
> to send text.
> 
>> Further, RFC 3716 only contains a single reference to
>> "Executive Director", and that is a historical note about
>> where the position was homed.  So, it is not clear to me how
>> this got sucked up in the IASA2 activity.
> 
> See Brian's note(s) but the above reasoning suggests that its
> getting sucked in was and is appropriate, at least unless the
> IESG wants to move, now, to make 3716 Historic.

I have no problem with RFC 3716 being moved to historic, but that should not happen as part of the IASA2 effort.

Side note: Using "Executive Director" has already made this way more complicated that had we chosen other synonyms that were available before the LLC was stood up.

Russ