IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-08.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Sun, 09 January 2022 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7F73A1017 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2022 00:59:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
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 Z0BIH1Wrjmr7 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2022 00:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC303A1016 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2022 00:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 2098xiMw086566 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:59:44 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641718784; bh=j8nMaSjFVfDRKs/w+oV/5+H/xlVXt2Fg8o5icLC381Q=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=WzjZdS5jZYymbhIXGwwYBRVzgtasvWCQHAPgRQxJ+9BFUr90HSqQi9G3Rsij8mpp0 O6w8YbOMeYzt88scjqifIX4dpxDeQrc20oAZAP1YCc+WptAS1Imbz0BP1F6MxkaUzi k7nMAiqKgGpyfek3i9m1hqbAX3IDhJazFssl+WfQ=
Message-ID: <756d6495-700f-04a2-da42-be730e4f3d5d@lear.ch>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 09:59:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>
References: <164159953944.5205.10517887235280838552@ietfa.amsl.com> <1e6664f9-f19d-a226-e709-d03fe6968497@stpeter.im> <116833C8-6D7C-43B3-A91A-E63FCCE7C448@mnot.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <116833C8-6D7C-43B3-A91A-E63FCCE7C448@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------nk47B0zZUtMyexhkuuq4wnKD"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/1AU2yKBrh0b8zZjWSkWDZp2iLzE>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-08.txt
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 08:59:56 -0000

Hi Mark,

Just on one point:

On 09.01.22 09:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks. Looking through the diffs, I noticed a few things:
>
> * "The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person or online-only meetings" -- this wording could be interpreted to prevent hybrid meetings, or online participation in in-person meetings.

Do you have a good wording suggestion for this, bearing in mind the text 
below?

>     The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
>     (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8874>]), forms of communication, and
>     working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
>     with [RFC2418  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2418>].

Thanks,

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email