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.

Alissa Cooper Yes

Warren Kumari Yes

Comment (2019-09-03 for -02)
No email
send info
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.

Barry Leiba Yes

Comment (2019-08-21 for -02)
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.

(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2019-09-04 for -02)
(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/.

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-05 for -02)
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that 7437 itself is no longer current/relevant.

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-04 for -02)
Agree with Benjamin's DISCUSS. I think the "Updates: 7437" is an immutable part of RFC7776 and it must not be changed.

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2019-08-28 for -02)
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.

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2019-08-26 for -02)
No email
send info
+1 to Barry’s comment, I found it to be very confusing as well.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-05 for -02)
I have cleared but the path to this document needs to be furthered discussed and also the next steps to consolidate the documents.