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

Thanks

Helpful

Scott 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 22, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> 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