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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

> On 2 Mar 2019, at 18:22, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> 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