Re: [Rfced-future] Program Last Call Results and Next Steps

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

Dear Chairs & all,

This evening I completed an editorial review of the entire document, in 
the process finding a relatively small number of minor errors, 
infelicities, and inconsistencies. Fixes for these matters will be 
included in the next version. Those interested can find them here:

https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/153/commits/fd05f83f69e959c7d05f77ecbd6c55c23eaa362e

I'll wait to hear from the chairs before submitting version -11.

Peter

On 1/31/22 4:22 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Program last call has now closed.
> 
> We received one set of editorial comments from Brian Carpenter.  I want 
> to detail the proposed changes here, and their disposition for the next 
> draft, which we are asking Peter to post now.  Once posted, we will 
> forward that draft to the IAB for further processing.
> 
>> "3.1.1.2. Participation
>> ...This includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG 
>> members, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors of 
>> RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author RFCs, 
>> scholarly researchers, and so on."
>>
>> I notice that implementers of code or hardware based on RFCs are not 
>> listed. That seems like a significant omission. 
> 
> Peter has expanded the list for consultation as follows:
> 
>> This includes but is not limited to participants in the IETF and
>>
>> IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of software or hardware
>>
>> systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts,
>>
>> developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs, individuals who
>>
>> use RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly researchers, and
>>
>> representatives of standards development organizations other than
>>
>> the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board members, staff and contractors
>>
>> (especially representatives of the RFC Production Center), and the
>>
>> IETF Executive Director are invited to participate as community
>>
>> members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC
>>
>> policies. Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate
>>
>> actively.
> 
> This text represents a move of some text from later in the draft, but 
> the normative constructs have not changed.
> 
>>
>> The explanation might or might not be actionable."
>>
>> I think that sentence might or might not be actionable. In other 
>> words, it's a no-op. 
> 
> This is text that we have discussed: the implication intended here is 
> that the proposal taken as a whole may be so flawed that no textual 
> change would correct it.  For example: “All future RFCs SHALL only be 
> published in Klingon".
> 
> Peter has proposed the following change:
> 
>> Nevertheless, the RSWG might not be able to
>>
>> come to consensus on modifications that will address the RSAB member's
>>
>> concern.
>>
> A missing parenthesis as noted, and a spelling error was corrected.  An 
> internal reference {#} was added.  Some spacing was modified.
> 
> These represent the entirety of proposed changes to the text.
> 
> Eliot
> 
>