Subject: [Iasa20] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:39:33 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to discuss a little bit exactly what we want to happen to
the metadata attached to RFC 7776.  It seems reasonable to apply the
same "the logical updated version of the document has this new text not
this old text" treatment we are giving the body contents to the bits at
the top of the first page (to the extent that it is reasonable to do at
all, viz. Magnus's Discuss).  But are we also asking for any of the
"live" metadata in the indices associated with the RFC Series to change,
even though that would bring them in conflict with the immutable RFC
artifacts?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also not entirely clear to me that we need to Update 7776 to remove
the references to its updating of 7437, since
RFC-7776-the-immutable-artifact does/did indeed update 7437; it's just
that 7437 itself is no longer current/relevant.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:48:36 -0400

Hi Ben,

> On Sep 5, 2019, at 12:39 AM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

No. Just noting it as a logical consequence, I think.

Thanks,
Alissa