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

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

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) :
>>> 
>>>