Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 02-Mar-22 07:52, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/1/22 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>      On 2/10/22 7:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>       > Hi Paul,
>>       >
>>       >
>>       > On 09.02.22 17:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>       >> Greetings again. The structures proposed in this document seem
>>      like a
>>       >> very good way forward. The level of detail about the
>>      expectations on
>>       >> each group is a good balance in prescriptiveness.
>>       >>
>>       >> Two small thoughts on the current draft:
>>       >>
>>       >> The future status of the rfc-interest mailing list is unclear; see
>>       >> Section 3.2.3. Given it s current contents, I could see that it
>>      would
>>       >> easily become a parallel track for discussions that should be 
on
>>      the
>>       >> RSWG mailing list. It might be good to close (and certainly
>>      archive!)
>>       >> rfc-interest unless it becomes more moderated by someone pointing
>>       >> discussions to the RSWG.
>>       >
>>       > I like the idea of at least having some RSWG participation to point
>>       > people to the right place, when necessary.
>>
>>      Keeping the rfc-interest list and starting a new list for the RSWG
>>      might
>>      indeed lead to confusion.
>>
>>      Here is a proposed change:
>>
>>      OLD
>>
>>           The RSAB seeks
>>           such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc-interest
>>           mailing list or to its successor or future equivalent.
>>
>>      NEW
>>
>>           The RSAB seeks
>>           such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the mailing
>>      list of
>>           the RSWG (which should supersede the current rfc-interest list).
>>
>>
>> I actually don't agree with this. I think the WG should have a separate list
>> that is moderated by the chairs. The rfc-interest list can continue, but
>> I think the new model deserves a new list.
> 
> Can we specify (at a high level) what topics are appropriate for
> rfc-interest as opposed to the RSWG list? Would we envision that rfc-i
> is more for implementers? We already have a plethora of lists (rfc-i,
> tools-discuss, xml2rfc-dev, etc.) and it's already unclear where certain
> topics should be discussed.

Please not. I don't think we should cover such operational details at all.
(Do you realise that RFC2026 refers to anonymous FTP and gopher?)

How about being *less* specific:

           The RSAB seeks
           such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to relevant
           mailing lists.

    Brian