IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Tue, 04 January 2022 19:50 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 1A3CB3A1F5E for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:50:50 -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 CxNHpBMrcFZG for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:50:44 -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 E2EAF3A1F5C for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::4] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:4]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 204Jodfa2484683 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jan 2022 20:50:40 +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=1641325841; bh=FzORHk/hE3BBefeTcXaOTi9ueW/kCwz01bgRHYRbN6g=; h=Date:To:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=RxwcjsRXeiWYu7zHhPaECWJQ0MoSFDn/d6hSAv8gR9dYqomCGV8Fpv4MFgCzqrhkk M3HixKzoEpcX3dNT81ixSiFXBrvXRff4gGsTdpbbd70N/1bV0c2L1s8+010gJ8M9JV azQZlQ/IxnSjjbWYp832n3SezPBy8M6SfkUr7bKk=
Message-ID: <145d2db5-b44a-1c2c-7bae-79b042313445@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 20:50:37 +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: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, rfced-future@iab.org
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com> <87ea0c57-3269-d8ea-90ec-0f91096f1d28@nthpermutation.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <87ea0c57-3269-d8ea-90ec-0f91096f1d28@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------G96HyUx0LOf0yQxbKV0rwFBH"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/4-7DUjLABoKisPMbbei0iQqZm6w>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
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: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 19:50:50 -0000

Hi Mike,

Just to preface, I'm offering some text below just to clarify a point on 
which I suspect the group agrees.

On 04.01.22 19:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> It wouldn't work for me.
>
> What I think EKR is saying - and let me use a concrete example - is 
> that if 5 people that think changing the numbering system of the RFC 
> series proposes that in the RSWG, gets RSWG consensus, but then the 
> community overwhelmingly thinks that's a bad idea - well so what?   
> The RSAB still has to approve the document?
>
> I would hope not.
>
Perhaps a tweak to Step 8 might help?

OLD:

>     8.  Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
>         community call(s) for comment have been addressed, ...

NEW:

>     8. Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
>        community call(s) for comment have been addressed*and that ****there is rough consensus of the community for the result*,...

Or some such?  And the RSAB could send out further calls for comment 
based on revisions, just to be certain.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email