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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

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