Re: [rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:34 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, Sarah, I am simply incapable of understanding where this fits
> into "oversight".

Please re-review the initial message, especially this bit:

It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs will be
> an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish the
> affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe
> it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this
> information with the broader community for discussion.
>

The RSOC is not making a decision here, it is ensuring that the community
knows the topic needs discussion.

> If it's anybody's problem operationally, it's John Levine's; and if there
> is a strategic concern it presumably belongs to the IETF Trust, which owns
> the IPR and therefore needs to be concerned about the long-term integrity
> of documents.
>

The IAB has published the format documents historically, not the trust.
This is a question ultimately about the formats in the RFC series, not the
IPR conditions under which they are licensed.

best regards,

Ted Hardie

>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 20-Feb-20 12:58, Sarah Banks wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >    It’s coming from the RSOC because we do not currently have an RSE. We
> currently do not have an acting RSE. We have a person in situ doing his
> finest to hold down tactical items while the community figures out the RSE
> business. Because this item felt like it couldn’t be simply shelved until
> there is an RSE the RSOC, including the temp PM, decided to share this note
> in the spirit of transparency. It’s not a new discussion in the RSOC,
> simply a byproduct of the desire to share info.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sarah
> >
> >> On Feb 13, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sarah,
> >>
> >> This is not about the technical aspect of your message.
> >>
> >> Can you clarify why this is RSOC business? I don't understand where it
> fits in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-3.1. I would have
> expected any proposals to come from the (acting) RSE.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >>> On 14-Feb-20 08:10, Sarah Banks wrote:
> >>> Hello IAB and RFC-interest community,
> >>>
> >>>    The RSOC has been following discussion of the issues encountered in
> deploying the v3 RFC format. These issues have necessitated several changes
> to the format as bugs and ambiguities are found. While we believe that this
> is necessary, we have a concern that the incremental nature of these
> changes will result in will result in RFCs published in more than one XML
> format over time, as the adjustments are made.
> >>>
> >>>    The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is currently investigating
> how many of the already-executed as well as anticipated changes might
> result in backwards-incompatible changes to the format, to get a better
> sense of scale.
> >>>
> >>>    It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs
> will be an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish
> the affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe
> it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this
> information with the broader community for discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Sarah
> >>> For the RSOC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rfc-interest mailing list
> >>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >>>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>