Thanks Helpful Scott Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 22, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
