Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9280 <draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13> for your review

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot, thanks for weighing in. Comments inline.

On 6/23/22 1:42 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 23.06.22 20:33, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi Rebecca,
>>
>> Thanks for your work on this important document.
>>
>> Here are a few proposed edits. I would like the Program chairs and the 
>> IAB to make sure they are comfortable with these changes before you 
>> make these edits.
>>
>> SECTION 3.1.1.2
>>
>> OLD
>>    software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
>>    Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs,
>>
>> NEW
>>    software or hardware systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and
>>    Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs and
>>    Internet-Drafts,
>>
>> RATIONALE: I don't think it was deliberate for us to leave out 
>> developers of tools used to author Internet-Drafts, however there *is* 
>> a difference (many tools are used to author Internet-Drafts but a 
>> smaller set of tools is used by the RPC to edit RFCs for publication).
> 
> This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so the change to me is a 
> wash, one way or another.

For the sake of consistency and for the avoidance of confusion, I think 
adding "and Internet-Drafts" is slightly preferable.

>> SECTION 3.1.2.3
>>
>> The following two sentences are in potential conflict:
>>
>> 3.1.2.3
>>
>>    The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving bodies (IESG, IAB,
>>    IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall determine their own processes for
>>    appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are
>>    described in Section 5).
>>
>> 4.4
>>
>>    *  If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to
>>       help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the
>>       relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and
>>       other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.
>>
>> In 3.1.2.3, the IRTF Chair is described as a stream approving body 
>> (!), whereas in 4.4 the IRSG is described as a stream approving body. 
>> I suggest that we remove mention of stream approving bodies in 3.1.2.3 
>> and make the following change.
>>
>> OLD
>>
>>    The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving bodies (IESG, IAB,
>>    IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall determine their own processes for
>>    appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are
>>    described in Section 5).
>>
>> NEW
>>
>>    The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall
>>    determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that
>>    processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5).
> 
> 
> I think it's better just to make a change to section 4.4 as follows:
> 
>>    * If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to
>>       help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with
>>       representatives of the relevant streams as appropriate. 

Although that text is fine with me, it still leaves the IRTF Chair as an 
approving body in 3.1.2.3, which doesn't seem accurate.

Peter