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

Right, I guess the rfc-interest@ list was created by the RFC Editor but is currently maintained by the IAB. I was assuming that the IAB would hand this list to the RPC, given it’s anyway an @rfc-editor.org list and they would decide independently if they would still like to maintain this list (and update the list description receptively). 

The paragraph below say if rfc-interest@ continues to exists, the RSAB should send the community call (at least) there. However, there is no need to send the community call to the RSWG list, given there was already a last call in the RSWG before the document was send to the RSAB. So the sentence below is really making a separate point.

> On 1. Mar 2022, at 20:02, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
> As to the second point, the IAB might want to discuss it in their meeting tomorrow. :-)
> 
> On 3/1/22 11:55 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> Ah sorry, seeing now that the program is cc'ed and there is also a discussion on-going. My second point is still valid. :-)
>>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 19:54, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Peter, hi all,
>>> 
>>> First, I think we need to cc the program list.
>>> 
>>> And second, I not sure that's correct. I was actually assuming we keep the rfc-interest list at least for now as this is also the list people are using to e.g. ask questions (to the RPC or the respective experts) about who to apply the xml or such.
>>> 
>>> Mirja
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 19:36, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> 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).
>>>> 
>>>>>> Someone is going to have to tool the tracking for RSWG documents after they leave the RSWG, given that this is a new process. That might be informal (but public) tracking, but I suspect that formally tracking the various rfc799*-bis documents will prevent later issues from arising based on missed cross-dependencies. Maybe adding a sentence or two about this to the current draft will keep it in our minds as we move forward.
>>>>> Good idea.  Perhaps something along the lines, “The LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support RSWG and RSAB decision processes and policies.”
>>>> 
>>>> WFM, although editorially I'll split up the RSWG and RSAB requests, placing them in the respective "Mode of Operation" sections.
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Rfced-future mailing list
>>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 
> 