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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

I'm only addressing points on which I have a view here:

On 10.03.22 08:12, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> I just mention it as a potential route to process deadlock.  Can the RSAB
> function with no chair?  I would like to assume that streams would pull and
> replace their reps that behave badly, but when designing systems try to
> remove classes of failure scenarios by construction, when possible.

It's really not necessary to worry about this.  Because the streams 
themselves require the proper functioning of the RFC editor, they're not 
likely to argue much over this, and just pick someone. The RSAB chair 
function is relatively weak, it's primary function being to convene 
meetings.  I would worry more about the IESG selecting someone to serve, 
quite frankly.


> 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."

>
>>> My understanding is that the current preference is to use the term
>>> "disabilities" rather than "special needs".
> Please don't forget this one.

I leave it to Peter to address this point.  I have no special knowledge 
or wisdom here.

> I was trying to say that 8730 is currently listed as only an informative
> reference, but it seems like it would be more properly classified as a
> normative reference.
>
> Thanks for the super-fast and comprehensive response!

Ah!  Ok.

Eliot