Ok. I'll push an update based on these changes in the next few days, barring additional comments.
On 30.01.18 17:02, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Pete Resnick > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > >> 8. Section 4: > >> > >> 'It is anticipated that > >> those roles will evolve. The IASA is responsible for keeping the > >> community informed in this regard, and MAY do so without updating > >> this memo.' > >> > >> I would be a little concerned if some of the key roles would > change without > >> this document being updated. I understand the need to be > flexible, but we need > >> to put some limits. Maybe at least emphasize the need to inform > the community > >> by a MUST. For example: > >> > >> 'It is anticipated that > >> those roles will evolve. The IASA MUST keep the > >> community informed in this regard, and MAY do so without updating > >> this memo.' > > > > I don't think the MUST significantly changes the meaning, so I'm > ambivalent about the change. Since this text was put in to address > a comment in AD Evaluation, I'm inclined to hear from Alissa. > > Perhaps the concern could be addressed by saying “without first > updating this memo”? The point I raised is that this document > shouldn’t gate the ability for the roles to change, but certainly > if they do change the document should be updated (or obsoleted by > a new document) to match the reality. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > > That would be fine with me. > > Regards, > > Dan >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
