(top post, partially about a more general issue) Subramanian, Since you addressed this to me, let me respond, at least in part. First, I made it very clear throughout almost the entire process that I volunteered to take on this document because observed, and apparently convinced the WG, that completely replacing a long list of documents in order to correct a few words such as a job title--but generally not the underlying model-- was likely to cause far more work and confusion than updating them in place by a document that could be summarized as "if you read 'IETF Executive Director' in anything published before the IASA2 transition started, something else is most likely intended and here is where you go to check if that intent isn't clear". But I have been acting strictly as editor -- when the WG, as interpreted by the co-chair or some other authority, has told me to change something, I have. Since version-00 of the I-D was posted in mid-November, document references and changes have been added to the I-D and taken back out, documents have been listed as obsoleted and moved out of that category, advice has been given to make some documents Historic and then removed, etc. The Change Log (which I just noticed contains one nasty typo) reflects those changes at a moderately detailed level and may prove instructive. As particular examples, because one of the documents was generated by the IAB, the decision was made that it should be updated only by the IAB and not by an IETF-stream document. And I was instructed by the responsible AD and the author of one of those long-untouched Experimental RFCs (who happens to be IAB Chair) that it was inappropriate for this document to make those (or even request that they be made) Historic because evaluating and/or documenting the outcome of old experiments was not the WG's job. Most of those decisions were reflected in messages to the WG list. Because I was (and am) simply acting as editor, what I think about those changes and whether they were appropriate or not is mostly irrelevant. So, if you have concerns, please take them up with the WG and those who led, steered, and directed it. As a personal aside, I think there are two theories about a document like this, and ultimately the WG, whose intent as I've understood it is to tidy up, and as necessary document, the effects of recent (in this case, IETF LLC and IASA2.0) changes. One, with which I mostly started, was to do that tidying, interpret the charter intent broadly if needed, use the document to minimize the need for extra work, get special signoffs on specific provisions if needed and reflect those actions, and to publish and move on. The other is to interpret the WG's charter narrowly and decide that, if an action is not within that scope, a separate document and separate action (assuming action is appropriate) is needed. While I had a personal preference coming into this, it may be rooted more in my view of IETF historical patterns and behavior (a view that may be distorted by my particular vision) than in present realities. I'm trying to not even have an opinion about which of those theories is a better match for the IETF and the readership of the RFC Series as it has evolved and is continuing to evolve. The document at this point is, IMO, closer to the second model than the first one, but not all the way there. If, as editor, I've misinterpreted instructions from the WG, by all means question that. But, otherwise, remember that I'm just the holder of the virtual pen. And, as editor, I believe I can report that everything, or substantially everything, on your list was the result of explicit decisions. best, john --On Thursday, March 14, 2019 08:26 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > At 02:31 PM 11-03-2019, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative >> Support Activity 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following >> document: - 'Consolidated IASA 2.0 Updates of IETF >> Administrative Terminology' >> <draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07.txt> as Best Current >> Practice >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits final comments on this action. Please send >> substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by >> 2019-04-01. Exceptionally, comments may be > > Section 2 only changes Section 3.3 of RFC 2028. Are the other > parts of that RFC still relevant? > > Is the Managing Director still an ex-officio participant of > the IESG? > > Who will now be part of the IESG as defined in RFC 3710? Is > that RFC a "consensus" document [1]? > > RFC 3929 is a 2004 experiment. Is that experiment still in > use after all those years? > > RFC 4633 is a 2006 experiment. Is it still in use? > > As an overall comment, the "in-place" terminology updates make > it confusing to understand all those RFCs. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. The discussion points to it being an informational > communication from the IESG.
