Re: I-D Action: draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-00.txt

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:47:48 -0600



    On 11/12/2014 12:30 AM, Murray S.
      Kucherawy wrote:

    
      Howdy,

      
    Hi, Murray,

    
    I've submitted a couple of updates since -00, but both of your
    comments still apply. Details below.

    
          On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM,
            Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

            I'm
              planning to submit -01 with this change:

              
              OLD:

              
                 This document allows the IESG additional flexibility in
              organizing

                 the IETF's work.  It does not make any changes to
              existing Area

                 structures, and does not argue that assigning more than
              two Area

                 Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long
              run.

              
              NEW:

              
                 The change described in this document is intended to
              allow the

                 IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's
              work.  It does

                 not make any changes to existing Area structures, and
              does

                 not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors
              to an

                 Area is an optimal solution in the long run. In
              particular, this

                 change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG

                 significantly. If several Areas will require more than
              two Area

                 Directors, the IESG should consider investigating
              alternative

                 ways of organizing the IETF's work.

              
              Please let me know if that's headed the wrong direction.

              
              And thanks for the feedback.
            

            The fourth paragraph of Section 2 ends in a comma.  I
              can't tell if it should be a period, or if there's a
              sentence [fragment] missing, or what.

            
    It should be a period. Thanks for catching that. Fixed in -04.

    
            The reference to RFC3777 in Section 2 might better
              reference draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, which is part way
              through IETF Last Call, though that's also something the
              RFC Editor might pick off down the line anyway.
          
        
    draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis would be a perfectly fine reference, and
    ideally, my draft wouldn't pass it in IESG evaluation(!), but I'm
    thinking that since there's a race condition, and it doesn't matter
    which draft is approved first, I should probably add a note to the
    RFC Editor about this, and let them do the right thing.

    
    I put this text in -03:

    
            <section title="NOTE TO THE RFC Editor">


                <t>This document has a normative dependency on RFC
    3777, and 


                draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, which obsoletes RFC 3777,
    is


                already in IETF Last Call. The dependency on RFC 3777
    is 


                perfectly well met by draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, if
    it's 


                approved first, and the reference can safely be updated
    to


                draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.


            </t>


            <t>This section can safely be removed by the RFC
    Editor before publication.


            </t>


            </section>

    
            Other than that, ship it!

            
    Thanks for another careful read!

    
    Spencer