Re: fundamental brokenness of iasa2 updates (was Re: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2418bis-01.txt)

[Scott Bradner <[e-mail]>]

in addition you need to say why changes are being made - for example Joel mentioned that the appeals process
is being removed from 5377 

5377 says "the appeals procedure documented in BCP 101 (currently [RFC4371]) is applicable.” 

this text has been removed from the bis ID -

what does this mean?  is the new board immune from all review other than noncom at end of term?
suddenly do we have an imperial board?

without some explanation should people worry on just what planet has the iasa2 WG has been?

so please update the IDs with a changes section that says what & why for each proposed change

Scott

> On Oct 22, 2018, at 5:08 PM, Scott Bradner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> this is a separate issue about the iasa2 proposed updates
> 
> come on - you update an RFC without including a section that says what changes you are making???
> 
> are you purposely trying to make it harder for IETF participants to understand what’s going on?
> 
> every RFC that updates another RFC needs (MUST?) have a section that tells the reader what has
> changed - this is vital for any technical speck so the implementor knows what they have to change in
> their implementation but its also very important in process documents so participants can understand 
> if they need to change how they do things
> 
> so, be nice to the participants and admit (in writing) what changes you are proposing
> 
> Scott
> 
>