IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 01 March 2022 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 1370E3A096E; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:56:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2Gg2ohAlQuop; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 8AE243A0A2B; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 221IubsG031407 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Mar 2022 18:56:37 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.15; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:56:36 -0800
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0986.015; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:56:36 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
Thread-Index: AQHYLZ4T8fLpwjijbkiDYIn0X1/LLQ==
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:56:36 +0000
Message-ID: <01D06884-9136-49EB-AE2F-904EBAEB2BE5@icann.org>
References: <74AF211B-741E-46FC-9E35-8015D5254515@icann.org> <f55fba34-c449-8566-0423-147fc1fa3363@lear.ch> <0c1711fe-bc05-e6b0-2f94-eb1c24ae3766@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBPqGHt0KD4tjQZFd7SVRwQHVa7fj7wJ_LYCn-3XQKjfjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPqGHt0KD4tjQZFd7SVRwQHVa7fj7wJ_LYCn-3XQKjfjg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5B6C1B80-B9B2-4796-B63E-8C6354D8C6A5"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.816 definitions=2022-03-01_05:2022-02-26, 2022-03-01 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/6McExfrp4hmOFgaAGBpXomIpTWM>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] [Ext] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
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, 01 Mar 2022 18:56:43 -0000

On Mar 1, 2022, at 10:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 

Personal view: the RSWG list should not be moderated, just like IETF WG lists are not moderated. This will surely be painful, with lots of strongly-held views supported only by predictions of the future, but that's also true for a fair number of IETF WG lists. 

I read the proposed "(which should supersede the current rfc-interest list)" to mean that the new list will have a new name. Maybe better wording would be:

    The RSAB seeks
    such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the mailing list of
    the RSWG, and the current rfc-interest list will be closed for
    submissions and archived.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email