Re: [Mtgvenue] About draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 17.10.18 12:37, Lou Berger wrote:
>> I asked twice, and I've yet to get an answer as to what part of IASA
>> remains that is NOT the LLC.  Can I get a straight answer to that? 
>
> I don't think this is a fair statement.  I do accept that I have
> failed at describing the difference between iasa, something that was
> defined many years ago, and the LLC which is still nacent, to your
> satisfaction.

Lou, I'm a pretty easy guy to satisfy on this one.  Just tell me what
remains in IASA that is relevant to this work, and I'll back the change
out.  I've looked and I don't see anything.  If there is nothing, let's
not make this more confusing to the reader than it needs to be, nor
unnecessarily delay (see below).
>
>> Otherwise, this really *is* not much more than a simple sed.  The
>> fundamental: adding unnecessary levels of indirection is confusing to
>> the reader.
>
> Iasa was sufficiently clear for all the LC reviews.

But the reason we're having this discussion is because the circumstances
have changed, much faster than many of us (most notably your humble
editor) had expected they would.
> I therefore see this proposed change as a difference without
> distinction, but if the working group consensus is to make the change
> it will do no harm other than causing a delay in publication.

I care less about the publication date than I do about not having to do
this again for a while.  But if you are worried about the publication
date, if people insist on the IASA term staying in, we're going to need
to block for quite a while until there is a replacement for 4071 because
it is no longer applicable.  I'm not fussed, tired, or proud.  This
document blocking won't kill anyone or stop sales of anyone's product. 
But I do think we should ask if there is a point to blocking.

>
> If this change is made, I do I think we have to get the language right
> and also agree with Bob that a normative reference to the document
> defining the LLC is needed in this document

The reason we needed a normative reference to 4071 was for the appeals
process (we directly referred to it). That process is no longer
applicable.  If people want an informative reference, I'm neutral.  I
can point to the legal doc or the LLC web site.  Probably that's a good
idea.

Eliot