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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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