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

I have no problem adding a section taht says we removed the appeals 
chain as we could not find a suitable and legal target for it.

As for whether that will answer any question about what that means?  I 
doubt it will.  Will it address any concerns about creating an imperial 
trust?  If the trust were responsible for standardization or IETF 
process, I would have serious concerns.  If I had a good answer for 
where an appeal could point, I would at least ask the lawyers if we 
could legally do that.
lacking either urgency from impact or a better answer, I don't know what 
you want done.

Regarding quietly chaning this, I was carefully not quiet.  I explicitly 
notified the working group of the concern when I first posted.  There 
was discussion on the working group list.  The chairs, as is their job, 
drew a conclusion from the discussion, and I implemented it.  This was 
unaffected by the fact that folks are not reading a lot of the document 
revisions (a charge to which I plead guilty.)

Yours,
Joel

On 10/22/18 5:17 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
> 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 <sob@sobco.com> 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
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> 