Re: [Mtgvenue] comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 30/01/17 17:37, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 8:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>  But I was suggesting that the IAOC
>> document how their algorithm/processes (as outlined in section 5)
>> change over time.
> 
> That's the task of revising this document.  The document covers
> procedures.  As noted by a separate exchange this morning, that might
> make it appropriate to factor some of the current text into a separate
> document, to localize the change effort.
> 
> Is there some reason the basic question of documenting changed
> procedures should be handled differently than we do for other
> specifications?

Yes. IMO the procedures/processes set out in the RFC we'll
end up with will change significantly more often than the
RFC will be revised. In the interests of improved IAOC
transparency, (which I think we've agreed is a goal here)
it'd be good if variations from that are documented somehow
(however IAOC like is fine by me) in a way that's visible
to the community and subject to community consensus. That
mostly applies to section 5, but also perhaps to other
sections. (I'd have no problem if that was a general thing
nor if it were specific to section 5.)

S.

> 
> 
> 
> d/
>