On 3/14/19, 11:42 AM, "ietf on behalf of S Moonesamy" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Section 2 only changes Section 3.3 of RFC 2028. Are the other parts
of that RFC still relevant?
[JL] Yes, the rest of RFC 2028 remains relevant, and it is not in scope for the IASA2 WG to materially change RFC 2028. The only change intended is to Section 3.3, as noted in Section 2 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07.
> Is the Managing Director still an ex-officio participant of the IESG?
[JL] Yes, because no material changes to the IESG were in scope for the WG. The exact title of the position is the only change here. The current list if IESG members (for others reading this thread) is at https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/.
> Who will now be part of the IESG as defined in RFC 3710? Is that RFC
a "consensus" document [1]?
[JL] There is no material change here either. As noted in response to your first question, the only change intended is to Section 2, as noted in Section 2 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07.
> RFC 3929 is a 2004 experiment. Is that experiment still in use after
all those years?
[JL] This was discussed extensively on the IASA2 WG mailing list between 12-February and 11-March, and in consultation with the RFC Editor and chairs of the IAB and IESG. The conclusion was reached that RFC 3939 be moved to historic but the IAB will need to take that step. As a result, this is a request the IAB, noted in the final paragraph of Section 1 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07.
> RFC 4633 is a 2006 experiment. Is it still in use?
[JL] See above - same as RFC 3929.
As an overall comment, the "in-place" terminology updates make it
confusing to understand all those RFCs.
[JL] Thanks for all your questions! Hope these responses helped.
