Re: [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-rsalz-2028bis-05

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the detailed review.  Sorry for the absurdly high quoted/new-text ratio, but I didn't feel comfortable trimming your feedback.
TL;DR.  here are the changes I made:
; g diff
diff --git a/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md b/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
index 6d26df3..3c74504 100644
--- a/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
+++ b/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ the Internet standards process.
 ## Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
 
 The IETF is an open international
-community of network designers, operators, vendors, researchers,
+community of network designers, operators, implementors, researchers,
 and other interested parties who are
 concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the
 smooth operation of the Internet.  It is the principal body engaged
@@ -254,7 +254,8 @@ charter {{IAB}}.
 
 Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC), including
 editorial preparation and publication.  RFC policy is defined by the RFC
-Series Working Group (RSWG), an open group, and approved by the RFC Advisory
+Series Working Group (RSWG), an open group (like all IETF Working Groups),
+and approved by the RFC Advisory
 Board (RSAB), which has appointed members.  The RFC Series Consulting Editor
 (RSCE) is a position funded by the IETF LLC, with responsibilities to consult
 with all parties, and be a member of the advisory board.


>    The main issue that I'd like to call out is that in general each role that's
    described in this document has a section just for that role, but there's one
    exception: the RSCE. The RSCE is just mentioned in the section on the RPC. If
    for no other reason that this results in the RSCE not showing up in the table
    of contents, I think this should be corrected. The current text describing the
    RSCE also doesn't give me any idea of what the RSCE specifically does, as
    opposed to "all parties" or other "member[s] of the advisory board." I think
    this description needs to be expanded upon at least to the point where the
    reader understands how the RSCE differs from other participants. In addition,
    "all parties" isn't explained, so I don't actually know who "all parties"
    includes. I think this should be clarified.

>    Similarly, the RSWG and RSAB are only mentioned in the RPC section, and
    probably ought to have sections of their own, even if no further description is
    given. I think it would be good to add a bit more descriptive text about these
    two organizations, however.

I disagree that the RSCE deserves a separate section from the RPC.  I think the fact that (like all other sections), there is a pointer to full details, mitigates your other concerns.  The main point is that this document is about the standards process, in particular for any specific document. It doesn't discuss, the ISE, the IESG's role in setting policy, etc.

    In addition, I encountered a few puzzles as I was reading:

>    In section 3.1, IETF, a list of potential IETF participants is given. Two
    things about this list puzzle me. First, one role explicitly called out is
    "vendor." I think this sends the wrong message, since IETF members participate
    as individuals, not as representatives of companies. It's true that "vendors"
    send representatives to IETF, but these representatives are obliged to
    participate as individuals, and generally speaking have specific individual
    roles that I think are more interesting than the "vendor" role. The specific
    example of such a role I think should be mentioned is "implementor." I think
    this is a fairly serious omission, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that
    it must be corrected.

I changed vendor to implementor.  Good point!

>    In the last paragraph of section 3.2, "Working Groups," the term "technically
    superior" is used to describe the protocols and services the IETF aspires to
    standardize

There are always exceptions.  Given the "ideally" I think this is fine as-is. Sure it's a bit of Kool Aide.

>    In section 3.5, the term "open group" is used to describe the RSWG. Hm, I'm
    realizing that like the RSCE, this should be in its own section, so that it
    shows up in the TOC. Anyway, the point being, it would be good to say what
    "open" means here. I think it means open in the same sense that the IETF is
    open, so perhaps a reference to the IETF would work here.

I think compared to "appointed" in the following sentence it's clear, but I am probably too close to the text. I will add
	An open group (like all IETF working groups)

>    In section 3.7, the distinction "shorter term" and "longer term" are used to
    distinguish between IRTF groups and IETF groups. I don't think that's really a
    necessarily valid distinction, although I agree that it tends generally to
    hold. I think the actual dichotomy is "research into insufficiently
    well-understood topics" as opposed to "practical issues of engineering and
    standards-making." I would suggest tweaking this text to avoid the short
    term/long term distinction, since I think it doesn't do a good job of
    illuminating the difference between the IRTF and IETF.  The other text about
    the distinctions between the two organizations seems fine.

That text comes from the current IRTF chair.