RFC Editor model discussion venue

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3BB120046 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9hm48gXO77E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC4CC120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id r4so21502047iop.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0BfsEfLOYOMrs7wBwhFVlMkkxgjPgKtwKhFKNRvHWT0=; b=a29fSQi8GVrxPcGmoafOEX+JqkANjh5sIsuU6/28xIvC8s/rgqBQxR5J+xssV7MpFh 3tKaKeAZbjrO4jUq/3KLp/dTQVGHBn0OKBS1UC+tV4ooCJlDEo35W5BqcFHyq5sM7SUS AL3wCvqmmIcA2pMv44IEbpsXDnerDr7quq3xcA1su3DnXKRo/p50ZCIvjoUu4x9zoUwZ onsELU/6pgxbmosg4Ad2GZ4gnebVh7rqOG1Yn+t2s0PK6UFqozij2VX1RCeN5mVNKjJZ aRuR1lVxQNaXXlQJ3Z6hcufj3+bsxsFqJuX0WraBgub7Vly4m4A/RTk6lbfC3lAk8M1x ZYtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0BfsEfLOYOMrs7wBwhFVlMkkxgjPgKtwKhFKNRvHWT0=; b=B7sygz7uIR/Miiwfbd7Vi2H490Y9mL8yiiHVwzx2T7SwYighEAhrCOtyToBOh3QcBg aPeF2z2qznMqsKuQalgaBp4bU5GFh4gUtO9RTgNZuvjkFDG8HSTZZRRuyb6W4QVBzmUa ZCvc198QCLJLuJsLyIYpKTa6W0Xl51xGv0T18DI7m9cEYSEJwdwNjTnshVCm9hJIps3X em7wTl+R9v/YCqExboBMV38Swb5EXgFrif984g24AKySD0812YsElITsNwYkEUhJV754 j1QE/7dmD+YKzoEB827YvBQQjW531drnMgy+Oa3TP0fM3btJUE+P+/tANsZM6CW+FVj9 eXLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU30RYeciovDQ/UIgz51YTBh7WMVVRSmK3bv+NNRx6jWEXsX0W4 cYZv6gNwkkGrc+GWK5im2P0ebVhPASPnDxK196W/SyTn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpZPOcEsL2EpU7ASq1aTiNlvD8HLxSRKSmvzc8bUMhC0kn80k9fPecQLAoL+I5G7SOPUEb4DQrDCn4sJib/7o=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:4404:: with SMTP id r4mr19117196ioa.159.1567523740516; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:15:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBdx9Q1bvVyCvYHtDNBrwh+GY5QPxSGX6VxQggRgiDWVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RFC Editor model discussion venue
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb06d80591a78f21"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/f9xHw0cGFEBR6A1ZOPCj4mEPbqE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:15:44 -0000

Dear Colleagues,

In the message I sent last Friday on behalf of the IAB, I noted that list
confirmation of any tentative conclusions from IETF 106 would take place on
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org.  This was following a consultation with
Heather during the plenary at IETF 105 on where to continue the
conversation; her response then was to direct discussion to the
rfc-interest list.  She was in the meetings where the current plan was
discussed and had the opportunity to review the IAB message before it was
sent out, so I believe she concurred with the use of
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org for follow-up discussion between then and now.

When I sent the message from the IAB to both the IETF list and the
rfc-interest list, I set the reply-to to the rfc-interest list.  That
worked much less well than it should have as a signal, in part because the
iab-chair role account is not subscribed to the rfc-interest list and the
message was held in moderation.  That meant that the message to the IETF
list was seen first and folks reacted there.  Sorry for any confusion that
resulted.

While folks can of course direct messages to the RSOC or the IAB without
cc'ing one of the lists, I do encourage folks interested in tracking this
discussion over the long term to subscribe to rfc-interest and contribute
there.  That list has folks from outside the IETF as subscribers, and we
wish to be inclusive of them in this process.

regards,

Ted Hardie
(without having confirmed that this is a consensus opinion of the IAB)