Re: [auth48] [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9283 <draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-09> for your review

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rebecca,

I believe that this is now ready to publish. Thanks for all your work.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 24-Jun-22 02:17, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
> Hi Brian and Mirja,
> 
> Thank you for reviewing that sentence. We have not made any changes as you both prefer the original wording.
> 
> All of our questions have now been addressed. Brian, please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/rv
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2022, at 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Mirja. I think we can leave it as-is then.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 22-Jun-22 21:38, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree with Brian as the IAB or RPC could still decide to establish a liaisons, I prefer the original wording.
>>> Thanks!
>>>> On 21. Jun 2022, at 16:33, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your reply. The only open question is the following one. No updates were needed for the other questions.
>>>>
>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarify "This is no longer
>>>>>> necessary"? We ask because this phrasing might be interpreted as meaning
>>>>>> (1) that the RFC Editor will no longer have a liaison member to the IAB or
>>>>>> (2) that the RFC Editor can have a liaison member even though it's not
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that we intend to *forbid* such a liaison member - so
>>>>> personally I think the current wording is correct. Lars? Mirja?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>    Also, RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison member to
>>>>>>    the IAB. This is no longer necessary.
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>    Also, RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison member to
>>>>>>    the IAB. This will no longer occur.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We’ll wait for a conclusion regarding this text and then ask for your final approval before moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 18, 2022, at 2:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Added IAB to CC's.)
>>>>>
>>>>> All looks good to me. Answers below:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18-Jun-22 15:55, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
>>>>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] The submitted XML file includes "General" as the
>>>>>> <area>. However, we do not see an area listed in datatracker. See
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter/.
>>>>>> Please confirm that the <area> should be "General".
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes please.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>>>>>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarify "This is no longer
>>>>>> necessary"? We ask because this phrasing might be interpreted as meaning
>>>>>> (1) that the RFC Editor will no longer have a liaison member to the IAB or
>>>>>> (2) that the RFC Editor can have a liaison member even though it's not
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that we intend to *forbid* such a liaison member - so
>>>>> personally I think the current wording is correct. Lars? Mirja?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>    Also, RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison member to
>>>>>>    the IAB. This is no longer necessary.
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>    Also, RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison member to
>>>>>>    the IAB. This will no longer occur.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>>>>>> online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that
>>>>>> our script did not flag any terms or phrases.-->
>>>>>
>>>>> I see nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2022, at 8:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>> Updated 2022/06/17
>>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>>>>> your approval.
>>>>>> Planning your review
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>>>>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>>>>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>>>>   follows:
>>>>>>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>>>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>>>>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>>>>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>>>>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>>> *  Content
>>>>>>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>>>>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>>>>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>>>>   - contact information
>>>>>>   - references
>>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>>>>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>>>>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>>>>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>>>>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>>>>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>>>>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>>>>   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>>>>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>>>>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>>>>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>>>>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>>> Submitting changes
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
>>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>   *  your coauthors
>>>>>>   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>>>>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>>>>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>>>>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>>>>   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>>>>>>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>>>>      list:
>>>>>>     *  More info:
>>>>>>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>>>>     *  The archive itself:
>>>>>>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>>>>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>>>>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>>>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>>>>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>>>>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>>>>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>>>> — OR —
>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>> old text
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>> new text
>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
>>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
>>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>>>> Approving for publication
>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>>>> Files
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> The files are available here:
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283.xml
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283.html
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283.pdf
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283.txt
>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283-diff.html
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>> The following file is provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>>>>> diff files of the XML.  This XMLv3 file is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only:
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9283.form.xml
>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9283
>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> RFC9283 (draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-09)
>>>>>> Title            : IAB Charter Update for RFC Editor Model
>>>>>> Author(s)        : B. Carpenter, Ed.
>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      :
>>>>>> Area Director(s) :
>>>>
>>>>
>