Re: [Mtgvenue] [Iasa20] Terminology issue in mtgvenue

Is there any update on this? 

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Oct 19, 2018, at 11:51 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this heads-up, Pete! We in the IASA2 WG will put this in our work queue. I will take a look as co-chair early next week and try to actively start up list discussion on the details.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On 10/19/18, 5:38 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Pete Resnick" <iasa20-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> 
>    IASA 2.0 folks:
> 
>    With my mtgvenue chair hat on: An issue has come up over in mtgvenue 
>    that I think really needs to be resolved by iasa20, and in particular 
>    not by the mtgvenue folks alone.
> 
>    The Venue Selection document, 
>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/>, 
>    refers to "IASA" throughout. When written, the document presumed that we 
>    were working under IASA 1.0, and had references to RFC 4071. When our 
>    documents got to AUTH48, we realized that it was going to come out right 
>    on the heels of the IASA 2.0 docs and that it would be silly to publish 
>    only to have to turn around and fix things. The initial suggestion in 
>    mtgvenue was to pretty much do a global replace of "IASA" with "IETF 
>    LLC" (with some other editorial changes). The document editor's version 
>    with those edits is here: 
>    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8491-auth48diff.html>. However, a 
>    few folks (and in particular, folks who are active in iasa20) noted that 
>    in fact "IASA" was correct, because under IASA 2.0, the LLC is under 
>    IASA, and that using "LLC" might be incorrect in some instances. 
>    Conversely, some folks thought that "LLC" was a clearer reference. As 
>    that discussion has evolved, your faithful mtgvenue chair is no longer 
>    sure that we've gotten this exactly right. On top of that, Alissa has 
>    indicated that it's probably better to have iasa20 figure out what 
>    terminology is appropriate to refer to the assorted entities, for the 
>    sake of all documents, not just mtgvenue's.
> 
>    So, I would ask that the iasa20 WG review the above two documents and 
>    let us know whether we've got it right or wrong, and generally let us 
>    know which terminology should be used in which circumstances. I'm sure 
>    mtgvenue folks will pipe up with their concerns, but guidance should 
>    really be coming from a discussion in iasa20.
> 
>    BTW: Don't worry about the fact that the document is in AUTH48 or 
>    whether it will need a new Last Call or whatever. Let's get the document 
>    correct first, and then we'll figure out what process knobs, lights, and 
>    buttons need to be operated.
> 
>    Cheers,
> 
>    pr
>    -- 
>    Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
>    All connections to the world are tenuous at best
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    iasa20 mailing list
>    iasa20@ietf.org
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20