Update to the IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF Administration LLC
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari Yes

I must admit that I also find the OLD / NEW less than easy to read -- however I believe that this is the appropriate / best mechanism to use in this particular case.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

(1) +1 on Barry Leiba’s COMMENT about updating meta-data

(2) A few nits:
-- Multiple places.  Typo.  s/Adminstrative/Administrative/g
-- Section 2.3.  Consistent spacing/typo.  s/obmudsteam/Ombudsteam/.

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

I have to say that I find the changes to the metadata stuff to be odd and confusing, and would have preferred that 7776bis completely replace 7776 instead of trying to update it.  No action nor response needed here... just wishing it had been handled differently.


Typo: “contained updated” should be “contained updates” in both the Abstract and Introduction.

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

+1 to Barry’s comment, I found it to be very confusing as well.

(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Thanks for the discussion about what we mean when we request to
update the metadata ("Updates:) headers.

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that 7437 itself is no longer current/relevant.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ignas Bagdonas; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

I have cleared but the path to this document needs to be furthered discussed and also the next steps to consolidate the documents.

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

While I understand why this approach was taken, I have to at least say that I find the OLD/NEW style in section 2.3 not very helpful. Just explaining the change in words would probably have been enough and less confusing.

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

Agree with Benjamin's DISCUSS. I think the "Updates: 7437" is an immutable part of RFC7776 and it must not be changed.