Barry: It's reasonable for the IESG to require updates to the old documents to address modern concerns, and necessary for the WG to do them.
Dave: Lisa is raising a completely open-ended concern. Hence, we cannot know what will satisfy her. Even if something is heavily used, it is reasonable to ask whether the usage is sufficient, the dangers are sufficiently problematic, and the like. Take the extra moment to let any glaring issues get stated.
Tony: We may get feedback saying that moving a particular RFC to full standard really does need more than a minimal amount of work. Work can be continued "off the charts".
Barry: Dealing with things like security considerations should NOT kick the document off the charter... at least not immediately.
Dave: Make sure that we do not fall into a trap of acting like normal wgs seeking Proposed. I think this defines a significant disparity on a significant issue about the basic process of going from Draft to Full.
Barry: "battles" with the IESG over each document are not appropriate to what we want to do. Consensus when we wrote the charter was NOT to add or update things like Security Considerations. I bring it back up now because we have some early feedback from the IESG, and that's new information.
Regards, S. Moonesamy YAM WG Secretary
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.