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

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Fri, 24 June 2022 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AB1C14CF13; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8JE1sChXqJb; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEF2AC14CF09; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 25O4FIP41464918 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:15:19 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1656044120; bh=P3rHfvOWcxTIL3tRERqxm0z/LrD4xXpO/73dkNXiQQQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=IRFbVNWSqrWnnpCznNOU4Bv05Ug4bYEpH3gpWXij0L44Nap/sv2cFuTXisq8fQH8C HxuNQa6H9PRy2ZLRz8Yyl84KcwaNeuNfwgioNV3lVOkyt8uKT1NR3sdIMiYqN7OWVf ud9bGkipjaxJJNY5aOrfLZaijckl7H3beJ5oWbAk=
Message-ID: <c31a59a5-3474-8327-c697-c4294add6229@lear.ch>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:15:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, iab@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
References: <20220618035859.D4FE015FF6A@rfcpa.amsl.com> <10597e60-58aa-41bb-cfaa-6a88c9843759@stpeter.im> <BA94ED3E-C9F7-4331-A1C6-6AB9E0D8283D@amsl.com> <7f890736-efd0-1e6b-670b-cb64a75785e4@stpeter.im> <83987AE0-5F7F-45AA-98A5-2EBE2DD22E4E@amsl.com> <e2924146-94b0-2294-0990-74e876f86f8b@stpeter.im> <E1C61C97-6D45-41E1-AFC9-2CC65A8EBA84@amsl.com> <59e1bf26-f313-00a7-801d-3a87e40e56a3@stpeter.im> <EB629C93-BD3D-4A67-9014-6EFE6A9FE204@csperkins.org>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <EB629C93-BD3D-4A67-9014-6EFE6A9FE204@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------ztW0uas02kEe0rguVuWWqt2T"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/s6npQJcWOW_jZt64FjzTilE706U>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9280 <draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 04:15:37 -0000

Hi,

On 23.06.22 23:31, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
> On 23 Jun 2022, at 19:33, 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 3.1.2.3
>>
>> 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 agree with this change.
>
> For the IESG and IAB, the same group acts as appointing body for the RSAB and as the stream approving body. That’s not the case for the IRTF, where the appointing body for the RSAB is the IRTF Chair but the stream approving body is the IRSG.
>
> The current text in Section 4.4 looks okay to me. I don’t object to Eliot’s proposed change there, but I also don’t think it’s necessary.


Ok by me then.

Eliot