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

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

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

(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
> 
> 
>