Subject: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-02 (and -01)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:14:52 -0500

Hi.

I've just posted draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-02, which
folds in comments on the list, several additional documents, and
a good deal of help from Jason.  The change summary for it and
-01 should be comprehensive about the changes although I make no
guarantees.

Immediately after I posted -01, I discovered that I had left a
document off the "updates" list in the I-D header despite that
document being mentioned in the document.   Given that the draft
is all about updating things and what it updates, that seemed
important enough to reissue a corrected version.  Apologies for
any confusion.    If anyone has actually started reading -01,
the text of the two versions is the same: the only differences
are the document name, the date, that header entry, and a change
log entry for -02.

I am aware of two remaining sets of issues with this document to
which I hope the WG will pay special attention:

(1) There are still several "CREF" comments in the text.  With
the exception of two notes to the RFC Editor, they should be
resolved in some way before this draft does to WG LC.
"Resolution" might be to just remove them, but I'd hope that
would occur only after some discussion.   Or there might be
changes, in which case please send text.   Note that two of them
basically encourage looking at other documents the WG has
considered to see if changes are needed and appropriate. 

(2) This draft handles several IETF Stream documents and a
couple of IAB Stream documents without differentiating between
them.  At a minimum, that implies that both the IESG and IAB
will need to sign off (I'm quite confident we have done that
with some documents before, so it doesn't break precedent).
However, if the IAB decides to add text (such as itself as
co-author, a list of members, and/or an explanation), the
document would need to be adjusted accordingly.   Or, if the
IAB, iESG, and WG leadership decide that two separate documents
would be the better path, I/we will need to split this one up.
The latter would not be a huge deal but would put an extra
document on the WG's plate and result in either a great deal of
redundant text or somewhat less redundant text and a normative
reference from one to the other.

thanks and, again, apologies for posting two versions within an
hour or two.

    john