On 2/24/16, 12:06 PM, "Architecture-discuss on behalf of Brian E Carpenter"
<architecture-discuss-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
modifications" might mean. Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.
Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
to updating the rules accordingly?
I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the difference
between a substantive change and a minor one.
Anyway, please propose text.
--
Joe Hildebrand