Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12

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

On 3/10/22 3:25 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 03:09:37PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/10/22 2:40 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 02:35:58PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/10/22 1:28 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10.03.22 08:12, Benjamin Kaduk wrote
>>>>>> It's getting late here, so maybe I'm just missing things, but while this
>>>>>> does seem to be an improvement, it still seems to have somewhat of a
>>>>>> mismatch with §4.3's depiction.  If I understand correctly, the RPC only
>>>>>> cares about value assignments insamuch as the values being assigned get
>>>>>> recorded in the RFCs being produced, and your new proposal doesn't
>>>>>> mention
>>>>>> documents/RFCs (other than this one) at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> "This document requires that the RPC document registry value
>>>>> assignments made by IANA."
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much what it said before, no? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I suggest this in the "RPC Responsibilities" section:
>>>>
>>>> 14. Ensuring that RFCs accurately document registry value assignments
>>>>        made by IANA.
>>>>
>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, we could also say the same thing under the
>>>> IANA considerations.
>>>
>>> That does remove the bits I was confused about, but to me it also seems to
>>> change the semantics somewhat.  Namely, now the RPC is just consuming
>>> things produced by IANA, which could be seen as removing the possibility to
>>> coordinate on which allocations are actually to be made, from what
>>> range(s), etc., that the previous text seems to have implied.  I think I
>>> have seen the RPC notice things in editing that would affect what IANA
>>> does, and thus am not confident that describing this as a unidirectional
>>> flow would be entirely accurate.  (Whether such coordination could occur
>>> between RPC and IANA in an informal manner so as to get the right thing to
>>> happen anyway, is another question.)
>>
>> Ah, I see, you were originally concerned about the text in Section 11,
>> not the text in Section 4.3.
> 
> Ah, yes.  I guess that got lost as the thread evolved.
> 
>> I wonder if something like this would be more accurate in §11:
>>
>> "The RPC is responsible for coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs
>> accurately document registration processes and assigned values for IANA
>> registries."
> 
> That looks good to me on first read, thanks.

Great. This and other changes-in-progress can be tracked in the 
following pull request:

https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/158

Peter