> On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
