Subject: [Iasa20] WG LC comment on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-00

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 21:12:06 -0500

Hi.

In the process of checking documents to see where a
consolidating update might be a better idea than completely
replacing earlier ones, I noticed that, while
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-00 eliminates references to the
IAOC (as the cover note and Section 7 say it does), it still
contains references to the IETF Executive Director.  The tracker
says it is in WG Last Call, so...

It hence either needs another revision or should be collapsed
into a consolidated update document.  One argument for the
latter is that, as described in Section 7, this draft makes
changes --whether characterized as "minor editorial" or not--
that are not strictly necessary to fix the document for the
IASA2 changes and hence lie outside the WG's Charter.  Authors
of these replacement documents have a dilemma in that regard: if
they stay within the charter, they need to just make the IASA2
changes, which means ignoring all errata, editorial changes
motivated by the passage of time, etc.  That would leave a
replacement document for which changes to the earlier one that
we know are needed have not been applied.   Or they can make the
changes and risk some sorehead complaining during IETF Last Call
that the WG didn't do a good job of reviewing documents,
violated its charter, etc., and that any documents should be
subject to the sort of review and discussion we'd consider
reasonable for something that might --intentionally or
inadvertently-- may making changes to fundamental processes.
Speaking as a candidate for the sorehead role, the WG should
certainly not assume the latter won't happen.

    best,
     john

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:37:00 +0900

John,

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:12 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> says it is in WG Last Call, so…

I did a quick pass, the usage of “IETF Executive Director” seems appropriate to me, they refer to the position of that name that reports to the LLC.  Note, the old position that reports to the IETF Chair is now called "Managing Director, IETF Secretariat”.

The draft is missing text in the Abstract and Introduction saying it obsoletes RFC4844.  A sentence or two in the Abstract describing the changes would also be nice.   I did that in the docs I am working on.

Thanks,
Bob

> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 22:03:47 -0500

Bob,

Thanks.  I have, for a variety of reasons, been trying very hard
to avoid getting drawn into this WG or spending time on it.  I
noticed the 5377bis problem and it seems to be dragging me in
more and more.   The comment about the Executive Director change
was based on a comment by someone who should certainly know that
I construed as suggesting that _all_ mentions of the IETF
Executive Director in documents affected by IASA2 should be
changed.  If that is not the case (and I'll certainly take your
word for it), then things in the WG are even more complex than I
had assumed, with missing explanations about what changes have
and have not been made aggravating the problem and evidence of
lack of careful review making things feel really shaky.

best,
   john

--On Saturday, November 10, 2018 11:37 +0900 Bob Hinden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> contains references to the IETF Executive Director.  The
>> tracker says it is in WG Last Call, so…
> 
> I did a quick pass, the usage of "IETF Executive Director"
> seems appropriate to me, they refer to the position of that
> name that reports to the LLC.  Note, the old position that
> reports to the IETF Chair is now called "Managing Director,
> IETF Secretariat".
> 
> The draft is missing text in the Abstract and Introduction
> saying it obsoletes RFC4844.  A sentence or two in the
> Abstract describing the changes would also be nice.   I did
> that in the docs I am working on.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:11:28 -0600

Hi John,

> certainly not assume the latter won't happen.

I seem to be suffering some from cognitive dissonance here, and was hoping
you could point out where I'm running into trouble.  On the one hand, I get
the sense that you want the IESG and WG leadership to avoid getting caught
up in process and (as Spencer would say) "do the right thing", e.g., in
coming up with new 5742 conflict review responses.  But here it seems like
the process is supposed to be sacred, in that charter limitations would
prevent even minor editorial updates.  Am I mischaracterizing something in
the above descriptions?  That would be the easiest explanation for my
confusion, I think.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 01:49:39 -0500

--On Friday, November 9, 2018 21:11 -0600 Benjamin Kaduk
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> tracker says it is in WG Last Call, so...
>...

> I seem to be suffering some from cognitive dissonance here,
> and was hoping you could point out where I'm running into
> trouble.  On the one hand, I get the sense that you want the
> IESG and WG leadership to avoid getting caught up in process
> and (as Spencer would say) "do the right thing", e.g., in
> coming up with new 5742 conflict review responses.  But here
> it seems like the process is supposed to be sacred, in that
> charter limitations would prevent even minor editorial
> updates.  Am I mischaracterizing something in the above
> descriptions?  That would be the easiest explanation for my
> confusion, I think.

Reasonable question.  Let me explain.

I've observed since the reaction to the IAB's getting detached
from the community in which as come to be called the Kobe
incident that there are rather fundamental differences between
technical work in the IETF and procedural, organizational, and
structural work.  While those differences are not reflected in,
e.g., RFC 2026, for good reasons or bad, we handle things very
differently.   There are many reasons.  With technical protocol
work, we have fairly well-developed success criteria even for
those cases in which we are making arbitrary decisions and know
it.  In many or most cases, boundaries about the scope and
applicability of a protocol are fairly clear.  By contrast,
procedural efforts often involve social, organizational, or
legal issues that are not within the expertise of many IETF
participants.  Some know that, some don't; some assume that
engineering methods and solutions can and should always be
applied, others disagree.  Perhaps more important, some of us
dig into those issues with great enthusiasm, others get involved
only out of a sense of obligation to the community, and others
feel that they are in the IETF for other reasons and, if they
get involved in any of the things that I'm broadly calling
procedural work at all, it may require dragging them, as the
saying goes, into it kicking and screaming.

In general, nothing wrong with any of that except that two
things are very important for those people who care about the
credibility of IETF processes but would personally prefer to
spend their time in other ways than getting dragged into the
details of particular work.   One is that they can figure of
what the WG is going to dig into, and potentially change, in its
work so they can decide whether they need to find the resources
and energy to participate actively in the WG (even if only for
damage control).    In that regard, a charter statement that the
"WG will not do XYZ" and the WG's sliding over that boundary is
far more serious than a WG discovering that its work naturally
includes doing some things that are not within a narrow reading
of its charter.  

The other issue is that, possibly to an even greater extent than
a conventional technical WG, the community --especially those
who are not inclined to be involved in the details of
process-related WGs -- must be able to expect that documents
that come out of such groups will be _very_ carefully reviewed
for all of the details being correct and consistent with a
reasonable interpretation of the relevant rules.  In the case of
this WG, I suggest there is at least the appearance of that not
happening -- no change summaries when documents replace others;
changes that the charter expressly forbids without explanation
as to why they are being made (I might feel differently if
careful and reasonable explanations where present); assorted
silly errors that, while their causes might be typos or
equivalent, are actually quite serious -- all all evidence of
lack of careful review within the WG.   

These are exactly the opposite of doing things because of rigid
and unthinking adherence to the rules.  They would be the right
things to do if the rules said nothing.   The observation that
they align with the rules may not increase their importance, but
does mean that there is even less excuse for not being on top of
them than if we were merely having a discussion of appropriate
actions.

I hope that clarifies why I'm pushing on this; thanks for
prompting me to do so.

best,
   john

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:11:21 -0500

John:

I confirmed that the references to "IETF Executive Director" in draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-00 are referring to the Executive Director of the IETF LLC, not the previous use of that title.

These terms are nailed dow here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-tFXmxQAKAgQ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-tFXmxQAKAgQ>

In summary:
- IASA 2.0 replaces the role of IETF Administrative Director (IAD) with the new role of IETF Executive Director.
- The title of IETF Executive Director has previously been used by Alexa Morris; Alexa will now be known as the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat.
- Portia Wenze-Danley, will serve as Interim IETF Executive Director reporting to the LLC Board of Directors.

Russ

> On Nov 9, 2018, at 9:12 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi.
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 03:23:07 -0500

Russ,

Thanks _very_ much for the explanation and the pointers.  I
obviously stand corrected.

Two suggestions:

(1) Shuffling terminology and titles around this way is very
confusing, especially to those who have not been paying careful
attention.  I have evidence (so far only in offlist
conversations) that at least some people who have been very
active in the WG are either confused or are describing the
situation in a way that adds to the confusion.   Even using
"Executive Director of the IETF LLC" and "Managing Director of
the IETF Secretariat" and dropping "IETF Executive Director"
entirely would help a lot.  Given our claimed preference for
avoiding royalty of various sorts, it might be even better to
get rid of "Executive Director" (a title that predates IASA and
goes back to a time when the IETF did not control its
administrative arrangements except by persuasion and requests
entirely).

(2) The idea that the best reference (if that is in fact the
case) for where these titles are nailed down is a link to an
archived email message is a little scary.  IMO, these titles (or
whatever is picked) should be defined and explained in an RFC or
something destined for RFC Publication.  Probably the
definitions should be cited in any document in which there is a
possibility of confusion, but, in any case, the definitions
should be part of our formal archival record.  Are  they in one
of the WG documents I haven't read carefully enough yet?

best,
   john

--On Saturday, November 10, 2018 02:11 -0500 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John:
> 
> I confirmed that the references to "IETF Executive Director"
> in draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-00 are referring to the
> Executive Director of the IETF LLC, not the previous use of
> that title.
> 
> These terms are nailed dow here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-t
> FXmxQAKAgQ
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-
> tFXmxQAKAgQ>
> 
> In summary:
> - IASA 2.0 replaces the role of IETF Administrative Director
> (IAD) with the new role of IETF Executive Director. - The
> title of IETF Executive Director has previously been used by
> Alexa Morris; Alexa will now be known as the Managing
> Director, IETF Secretariat. - Portia Wenze-Danley, will serve
> as Interim IETF Executive Director reporting to the LLC Board
> of Directors.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> of these replacement documents have a dilemma in that regard:
>> if they stay within the charter, they need to just make the
>> IASA2 changes, which means ignoring all errata, editorial
>> changes motivated by the passage of time, etc.  That would
>> leave a replacement document for which changes to the earlier
>> one that we know are needed have not been applied.   Or they
>> can make the changes and risk some sorehead complaining
>> during IETF Last Call that the WG didn't do a good job of
>> reviewing documents, violated its charter, etc., and that any
>> documents should be subject to the sort of review and
>> discussion we'd consider reasonable for something that might
>> --intentionally or inadvertently-- may making changes to
>> fundamental processes. Speaking as a candidate for the
>> sorehead role, the WG should certainly not assume the latter
>> won't happen.
>> 
>>    best,
>>     john
>> 
>> 
>>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 23:03:55 +0700

Hi John,

The role of executive director is defined in the LLC agreement: https://www.ietf.org/documents/180/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf

Best,
Alissa

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 3:23 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Russ,
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:45:10 -0500

Alissa:

I believe the change in titles should be explained in Section 3 of draft-ietf-iasa2-struct

Russ

l
> On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> The role of executive director is defined in the LLC agreement: https://www.ietf.org/documents/180/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/documents/180/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf>
> 
> Best,
> Alissa
> 
> On Nov 10, 2018, at 3:23 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>> Russ,
>> 
>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> John:
>>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-t <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW-t>
>>> FXmxQAKAgQ
>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW- <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW->
>>> tFXmxQAKAgQ>
>>> 
>>> In summary:
>>>> On Nov 9, 2018, at 9:12 PM, John C Klensin
>>>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi.
>>>> 
>>>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:22:33 -0500

Alissa,

THanks, but not my point.

The point was that, partially as a consequence of apparently
moving titles around (or keeping an old title but moving it to
something else while creating a new title for more or less the
old function) we have what is at least an opportunity for a lot
of confusion.   Those opportunities are enhanced when the
descriptions are in documents that (i) are not in the RFC Series
and (ii) one can find only if one knows exactly what to look
for, whether they are in an IETF document tree, an email thread,
or somewhere else.   

The mail message to which Russ pointed at least tries to explain
the relationships among the various positions.   I don't think
those explanations are quite adequate, but that is clearly a
matter of opinion.   This document, however, simply defines the
role in terms of "the LLC" without any context of previous uses
of that title for something else or how the person in that
position is expected to interact with the IETF.  The subsequent
paragraph requires the Board to consult with the IETF in matters
"as appropriate" (presumably in its sole judgment) but puts no
such obligation on the Executive Director (who is not a Board
member).    That runs the risks of the Executive Director either
being completely disconnected from the community or the Board
feeling encouraged to micromanage, but neither is an issue for
today and I hope that neither possibility is likely.

For that document and its purpose, all of that is well and good,
but I believe these things need to be explained, in context in a
document in the RFC Series, one that goes through the normal
IETF Last Call procedure and that provides explanations for IETF
participants and guidance (even if not anything binding) for the
LLC Board.  Russ's suggestion of Section 3 of
draft-ietf-iasa2-struct seems entirely reasonable to me.

best,
   john

--On Saturday, November 10, 2018 23:03 +0700 Alissa Cooper
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> The role of executive director is defined in the LLC
> agreement:
> https://www.ietf.org/documents/180/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf
> 
> Best,
> Alissa
> 
>> confusing, especially to those who have not been paying
>> careful attention.  I have evidence (so far only in offlist
>> get rid of "Executive Director" (a title that predates IASA
>> and goes back to a time when the IETF did not control its
>> archived email message is a little scary.  IMO, these titles
>> (or whatever is picked) should be defined and explained in an
>> RFC or something destined for RFC Publication.  Probably the
>> definitions should be cited in any document in which there is
>> a possibility of confusion, but, in any case, the definitions
>> should be part of our formal archival record.  Are  they in
>> one of the WG documents I haven't read carefully enough yet?
>> 
>> best,
>>   john
>> 
>> 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsGW
>>> -t FXmxQAKAgQ
>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/C0g-Gp4vbGMYsG
>>> W- tFXmxQAKAgQ>
>>> 
>>> In summary:
>>>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi.
>>>> 
>>>> It hence either needs another revision or should be
>>>> collapsed into a consolidated update document.  One
>>>> argument for the latter is that, as described in Section 7,
>>>> this draft makes changes --whether characterized as "minor
>>>> editorial" or not-- that are not strictly necessary to fix
>>>> the document for the IASA2 changes and hence lie outside
>>>> the WG's Charter.  Authors of these replacement documents
>>>> have a dilemma in that regard: if they stay within the
>>>> charter, they need to just make the IASA2 changes, which
>>>> means ignoring all errata, editorial changes motivated by
>>>> the passage of time, etc.  That would leave a replacement
>>>> document for which changes to the earlier one that we know
>>>> are needed have not been applied.   Or they can make the
>>>> changes and risk some sorehead complaining during IETF Last
>>>> Call that the WG didn't do a good job of reviewing
>>>> documents, violated its charter, etc., and that any

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 00:40:33 +0700

Hi,

No hats, but I'll observe that one of the problems we had with IASA classic 
(sorry, can't resist) was the extensive discussion of particular facets of 
history and reasoning, without a lot of clarity about what the tasks were. 
I appreciate the difficulty that arises from re-using a title for a new set 
of responsibilities, but I should hope it is quite plain why that's being 
done in this case. The actual job we want done is indeed the executive 
director of a small non-profit. I should like to think that the long-term 
advantages of such terminological clarity would outweigh the inconvenience 
to participants who are reviewing these documents now.

I observe that the ED is not only outlined in the LLC agreement, but is 
already in fact discussed in -struct, in section 4.4.  I can see an 
argument for highlighting this change in section 3. But I don't think it's 
unreasonable to expect people to look over the table of contents and note 
the important terms there, also. That there's a whole section on the 
relationship between the ED and the LLC Board ought to make it plain 
something is perhaps changed in familiar terms.

Best regards,

A

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:06:56 +1300

> I believe the change in titles should be explained in Section 3 of draft-ietf-iasa2-struct

There's a bit more to do. The term "IETF Executive Director" is used
in both RFC2026 and RFC2418, without definition, and since those are
still our most fundamental process documents I think we need to be
very explicit. To which role in the new structure do those two RFCs
refer?

It's also present in RFC 2028, 3005, 3710, 3716, 3929, 3979, 4071, 4089,
4633, 4879 and 7437, and only some of those are under revision here.

    Brian

> 
> Russ
> 
> l
>> On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 16:04:29 -0500

At Jason's request after I sort of volunteered, I'm trying to
put a consolidated update document together.  The initial draft
that I sent him about 15 hours ago isn't exactly what he asked
for (I don't think his initial suggestion would work and this
"sometimes the historical term translates to one new job and
sometimes to the other" discussion reinforces that view).
However, if someone (or some combination of people) are willing
to go through the documents Russ lists and tell me which title
goes with which document, I'd be happy to splice that
information in and profusely acknowledge the contribution.   

I don't have an opinion yet as to whether some or all of the
updates need a per-document explanation of the changes.  If any
do, I think the thing to do is to reference the text in
draft-ietf-iasa2-struct but that would mean we need to reach at
least very rough (and subject to change) consensus on what text
should be there (or whether the current text is adequate).

The draft so far is rather more of a template with language for
a few documents (2418, 3005, and 5377) filled in for
illustration purposes.  If the WG decides one or more of those
actually needs a replacement document rather than an update,
they are easily removed.  And, for the record, I have no
particular skin in this game.  I posted
draft-klensin-iasa2-2418upd-5377upd-00 a bit under three weeks
ago in the hope of facilitating this discussion and note that,
AFAICT, no one has paid any attention to it, which may be what
it deserved.  The new draft is almost certainly much more useful
(mostly due to Jason's suggestions), but, if the WG doesn't want
it, we move on.   My only objective is that, having stirred this
micro-firestorm up last month, I'm feeling a small obligation to
suggest constructive solutions.   However, I don't have much
time so, it the I-D is to be completed and move forward, it will
need to be a collaborative effort.

    best,
    john

--On Sunday, November 11, 2018 09:06 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> There's a bit more to do. The term "IETF Executive Director"
> is used in both RFC2026 and RFC2418, without definition, and
> since those are still our most fundamental process documents I
> think we need to be very explicit. To which role in the new
> structure do those two RFCs refer?
> 
> It's also present in RFC 2028, 3005, 3710, 3716, 3929, 3979,
> 4071, 4089, 4633, 4879 and 7437, and only some of those are
> under revision here.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Nov 2018 18:43:43 +0800

In article <[email-masked]> you write:

>The role of executive director is defined in the LLC agreement:

If we wanted to change the name of the ED, which I am not at all sure
we do, I don't think I'd have much trouble getting ISOC to amend
the necessary documents.

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:15:07 +1300

> we do, I don't think I'd have much trouble getting ISOC to amend

The references to the role in old RFCs would still need to be patched,
so I don't think there's any point in changing the name.

   Brian

---

From: "Deen, Glenn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 21:25:45 +0000

I’d be against again changing the role title. It matches the name and role that is common used by organization for the tasks assigned to the IETF Ex Dir role in iasa2 and our documents of creation. 

Changing it would confuse externals when the IETF ED was interacting with them and make it harder for the IETF ED to be recognized externally.

As it stands it’s the correct title for the job. 

Glenn 

> On Nov 11, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:14:58 -0500

Can do

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:22:24 +0100

Hi John,

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 6:22 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 

Your previous message suggested changing the executive director title, so I thought it was material to point out that such a change would affect the LLC agreement in addition to the drafts. It’s a much heavier weight process than it might seem.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:46:35 +0000

We are well past a point of consensus on the title of the role; let's keep focus on the work ahead of us. There is plenty left to do.

JL

On 11/11/18, 5:43 AM, "iasa20 on behalf of John Levine" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    
    
    R's,
    John

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:50:47 +0000

> At Jason's request after I sort of volunteered, I'm trying to
    put a consolidated update document together.  

[JL] Quite so. We had been going down a path of mostly updating RFCs individually. You seemed to suggest we should take an approach to consolidate the simple name changes across several RFCs into one draft - which I think will help us quickly close out some of our final few RFC updates. I very much appreciate your getting the discussion started.

[JL] I have that info and am happy to provide it. The exercise is really much more straightforward than it may appear. :-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:15:17 -0500

--On Monday, 12 November, 2018 15:22 +0100 Alissa Cooper
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Your previous message suggested changing the executive
> director title, so I thought it was material to point out that
> such a change would affect the LLC agreement in addition to
> the drafts. It's a much heavier weight process than it might
> seem.

Yes, others have told me that.   I also didn't understand much
earlier that this was a title-shuffle rather than a renaming.
At this point, I agree that changing the LLC agreement is almost
certainly not worth the trouble.

That we are in this situation further increases my concern about
the quality of community and WG review and consensus in the
whole IASA2 process.   I don't see any way to fix that
retroactively, but hope that the WG, the IESG, and the community
can be a lot more careful going forward and that we don't
encounter any more examples that have the appearance of "can't
change that and reviewing it is meaningless because the decision
is already locked in".

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:36:47 -0500

--On Monday, 12 November, 2018 14:50 +0000 "Livingood, Jason"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 11/10/18, 4:04 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of John C Klensin"
> <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> [JL] Quite so. We had been going down a path of mostly
> updating RFCs individually. You seemed to suggest we should
> take an approach to consolidate the simple name changes across
> several RFCs into one draft - which I think will help us
> quickly close out some of our final few RFC updates. I very
> much appreciate your getting the discussion started.
> 
>     to go through the documents Russ lists and tell me which
> title     goes with which document, I'd be happy to splice that
> [JL] I have that info and am happy to provide it. The exercise
> is really much more straightforward than it may appear. :-)

What is more important to me is that it appears, at least to me,
is that it seems to be, as you suggest above, a much faster and
probably more accurate path to closing out the WG's documents
and workload that continuing the path of replacing basic
procedural documents, especially when those documents involve
outstanding issues or errata that should be addressed if they
are replaced.

   best,
     john