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

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

On 02-Mar-22 10:04, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/1/22 12:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> On 02-Mar-22 07:52, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 3/1/22 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Can we specify (at a high level) what topics are appropriate for
>>> rfc-interest as opposed to the RSWG list? Would we envision that rfc-i
>>> is more for implementers? We already have a plethora of lists (rfc-i,
>>> tools-discuss, xml2rfc-dev, etc.) and it's already unclear where certain
>>> topics should be discussed.
>>
>> Please not. I don't think we should cover such operational details at all.
>> (Do you realise that RFC2026 refers to anonymous FTP and gopher?)
>>
>> How about being *less* specific:
>>
>>             The RSAB seeks
>>             such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to relevant
>>             mailing lists.
> 
> IIRC folks wanted to know that there was one place such announcements
> were guaranteed to appear (kind of like the new-work list, I suppose).

I want that too. It just doesn't seem like something we should bake
into an RFC.

    Brian