Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [IAB] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 03-Mar-22 11:04, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 14:02 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> If you want to retain "RFC Editor Function" (I think
>>> "function" in Section 1, first paragraph, is a typo),  then
>>> "previously assigned" is not quite right.
>>
>> That text was intended to be about the responsibilities, not
>> the name.
> 
> That makes good sense, but I read it as definitional.  See below.
> 
>> Do we feel that we need to (re-)define "RFC Editor Function"
>> in this document? (Brian mentions "various documents" but
>> where was it defined before?)
> 
> I'm not going to spend time looking in other places, but the
> Abstract of RFC 4844 (copied, AFAICT, into RFC 8729) does use
> the term.  They use lower case as "RFC Editor function", perhaps
> because at the time 4844 was written, we had not even separated
> things into Streams, much less created a whole cluster of
> relevant entities.

I was specifically thinking about draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter,
which could of course be wordsmithed if necessary, but I imagine
that such a generic phrase is used in various places.

Wait, there's this thing called 'grep'...

Yes, the phrase is used in literally thousands of RFCs; notably
3716, 4844, 4846, 6220, 6548, 6635, etc. but also all those containing
"Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society." or
"Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF."

I don't see any particular argument for changing the usage now.

    Brian

> 
> Unless we want to invite "RFC Editor [Whole] Shebang", "RFC
> Editor [Three-Ring] Circus", or, for the negative among us "RFC
> Editor Mess", I think it would be very helpful if, early on, you
> said something like 'the entire collection of organizations and
> functions that bear on this model and getting RFCs produced is
> known as the "RFC Editor Function"'.  I have no opinion about
> whether we need get another abbreviation (RFCF? RFCEF?) there or
> what it should be.
>   
>> If so, is it the collective combination of the RSWG, RSAB,
>> RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC when dispatching the responsibilities
>> specified in this document?
> 
> Yes, I think so but, if you were listing them, I'd say
> "including" so as the make the term (and the document) a bit
> more future-proof.
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
> 
>