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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:56 AM Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Mar 1, 2022, at 10:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> 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,

Thanks for your email. you're right that "moderated" was the wrong term. I
meant "managed" in the sense that WG chairs manage IETF lists now. This can
be very light touch, but they're ultimately responsible for keeping things
on topic, addressing misbehavior, etc.

-Ekr


> --Paul Hoffman