[Rfced-future] CONCERN positions after RSWG discussion (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Peter:

Hi!  Thanks for such a clear document!


One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
Bullet point 9 says this:

        Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
        discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
        during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
        as a surprise to the RSWG.

While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].

Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
consensus (4).  If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
in the form of a CONCERN position?

The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
position.


I didn't follow the discussions on the rfced-future list in detail, so
this point may have come up before.


Thanks!

Alvaro.



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy