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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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".

Regards
   Brian

On 2018-10-21 09:18, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> For whatever it is worth, I've very concerned about the IASA2
> effort sliding over into replacement of fundamental process
> documents.  RFC 2418, like 2026, is showing its age.  If we are
> going to revise it, it seems to me that there is a very good
> case for a comprehensive comparison of actual practices today
> with the text and document revisions as appropriate and not
> publishing a new document in which descriptions of obsolete
> practices are repeated.   
> 
> As one example among many, the BOF description of 2418 still
> discusses the decision to hold a BOF as one that can be made by
> a single AD while today's procedure involves formal applications
> on a community-wide schedule, IAB and IESG review, etc.  We've
> also relaxed the "only once or possibly a second time but never
> three" rule.   
> 
> As another, RFC 2418 calls for explicit disclosure of conflicts
> of interest but points to RFC 2028/ BCP 11 which, AFAICT, only
> discusses IPR rights.  In today's Internet and IETF, that would
> seem to call for some review and perhaps some comments about AD
> <-> WG Chair relationships.  And, as a third, at the time 2418
> was written, saying that we do things by rough consensus was
> adequate (or at least believed to be adequate).  Today, we've
> got RFC 7282, which should probably be referenced, and a
> collection of other documents and procedures that interact
> significantly with how WGs do their work, how people
> participate, and how conclusions are reached.
> 
> Those are not the only examples.
> 
> Most of those are not huge issues, but it does not seem
> appropriate to issue a document that replaces / obsoletes 2418
> without addressing them (and several others).
> 
> In addition, replacing fundamental IETF process documents
> appears to be clearly outside the scope of the IASA2 effort.
> The last paragraph of the WG charter begins:
> 
> 	"Aside from instances where they presently relate to
> 	IASA, it is outside the scope of this working group to
> 	consider any changes to anything related to the
> 	oversight or steering of the standards process as
> 	currently conducted by the IESG and IAB,...".
> 
> The only sense in which this work "presently relates to IASA" is
> the title of the IETF Executive Director.  The I-D affirms that
> by listing that as the only non-"insignificant" change from
> 2418.  The new term appears exactly once in this draft and the
> old one appeared exactly once in 2418.  It might make sense to
> completely replace 2418 if it appeared many times and was
> tightly woven in the text, but it isn't. 
> 
> FWIW, there are also a number of (other) obsolete references or
> missing references in this I-D.  Given that they authors have
> not found and fixed them by -01, getting them out presumably
> implies extra work for them and the community.
> 
> I strongly suggest that, 
> 
>  -- to avoid reissuing a fundamental process document and
> 	thereby explicitly reaffirming procedures and mechanisms
> 	that do not precisely align with current practices,
>  -- to avoid creating confusion about the status of every
> 	document that references these old process documents, 
>  -- to avoid the risks of a supposedly insignificant
> 	change actually having some substantive consequences,
> 	and 
>  -- to reduce the number of documents and page count
> 	coming out of the IASA2 WG and process so the community
> 	can concentrate on reviewing changes that actually are
> 	important,
> 
> this I-D and any others for which the changes to the relevant
> base documents are limited to updating a title (or something
> equally trivial) be replaced by a single "IASA2-related
> terminology update" draft that simply lists the replacement
> terms and the documents that are updated to reflect them. I
> haven't made a careful study, but it appears to me after quick
> glances that a "gather together into one document and update
> only the terminology" model could include 3005bis, possibly
> 4844bis, and perhaps others.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, October 20, 2018 09:47 -0700
> [e-mail] wrote:
> 
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
>> IETF Administrative Support Activity 2 WG of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : IETF Working Group Guidelines and
>> Procedures         Authors         : Scott Bradner
>>                           Rich Salz
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2418bis-01.txt
>> 	Pages           : 27
>> 	Date            : 2018-10-20
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has
>> responsibility for    developing and reviewing specifications
>> intended as Internet    Standards.  IETF activities are
>> organized into working groups (WGs).    This document
>> describes the guidelines and procedures for formation    and
>> operation of IETF working groups.  It also describes the formal
>>    relationship between IETF participants WG and the Internet
>>    Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the basic duties of
>> IETF    participants, including WG Chairs, WG participants,
>> and IETF Area    Directors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>