Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [IAB] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

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

On 3/2/22 1:53 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> On 2022-03-02 08:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for your careful review. Comments inline.
> 
> Many thanks for your careful response.

Many thanks for your careful consideration of my careful response to 
your careful review. ;-)

> [I have cut out parts where you agree with my comments.]

Likewise.

>> On 2/25/22 5:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>> FYI
>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Martin Dürst via Datatracker <[e-mail] 

<snip/>

>>>> 1. Introduction: "The RFC Editor function
>>>>   is responsible for the packaging and distribution of all RFCs;"
>>>> "packaging" sounds a bit strange; it might be better to say 
>>>> something like "The
>>>> RFC Editor function
>>>>   is responsible for the editing and distribution of all RFCs;"
>>
>> I agree that "packaging" is a slightly strange word, although I'll 
>> note that this text was copied directly from RFC 8728 / 6635 and from 
>> RFC 5620 before that. Among potential synonyms such as "production", 
>> "collection", or "presentation", I think "production" is likely 
>> closest to our intent, but I might check with Olaf Kolkman (editor of 
>> RFC 5620) to see if he recalls why we chose this particular word.
> 
> Production would be fine by me. The others also sound a lot better than 
> "packaging".

I've pinged Olaf about this. In the meantime, I would prefer "production".

>>>> 2. Overview
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if the first two paragraphs could be exchanged so 
>>>> that the
>>>> actual new model comes first. But this may need too much editing.
>>
>> I don't see the advantages of this proposed change.
> 
> Let me try to explain a bit more. The section title says "Overview of 
> the Model". So the reader expects to read about the (new!) model. But 
> the section starts talking about the (no longer relevant) past. And that 
> past will only become less relevant over time.

I see your point now. This seems slightly better.

> 
> [It didn't help that in the copy I reviewed, printed from 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11, 
> the first paragraph was at the bottom of one page, and the second at the 
> top of the next page. But I don't think that was the main reason.]
> 
> So we currently have:
> 
>  >>>>
>     Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model [RFC8728] defined a structure
>     consisting of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and
>     the RFC Publisher, with oversight provided by the RFC Series
>     Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf of the Internet Architecture
>     Board (IAB).
> 
>     By contrast, version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, specified here,
>     provides a more consensus-oriented framework (similar in some
>     respects to the structure of technical work within the IETF) that
>     retains roles for specialized expertise in document editing and
>     publication.
>  >>>>
> 
> What I think would make more sense is something like:
> 
>  >>>>
>     Version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, specified here,
>     provides a consensus-oriented framework (similar in some
>     respects to the structure of technical work within the IETF) that
>     retains roles for specialized expertise in document editing and
>     publication.
> 
>     By contrast, the predecessor, version 2 of the RFC Editor Model
>     [RFC8728] defined a structure consisting of the RFC Series Editor,
>     the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher, with oversight
>     provided by the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) on behalf
>     of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
>  >>>>
> 
> But then actually, it's even clearer that the discussion of the old 
> structure doesn't contribute too much. And I may repeat myself, but over 
> time, that contribution will get less and less.

Sure, I think we could remove this paragraph from the Overview section 
without loss.

>>>> 3.1.2.2.  Members
>>>>
>>>> "As the stream representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member
>>>>      or other person appointed by the IESG" ->
>>>> "As the stream representative for the IETF stream, an IESG member
>>>>      or another person appointed by the IESG"
>>>> (And same for the next three bullets; it feels unnatural to have the 
>>>> "an" apply
>>>> over an "or", and it feels even less natural to have to imagine an 
>>>> "an" for the
>>>> later two bullets where the preceding options take the definitive 
>>>> article.)
>>
>> The current text sounds fine to my ear.
> 
> I tried several times, but it didn't sound well to me. I suggest we 
> leave it to RPC editorial discretion.

Good idea.

>>>> 3.2.6.  RFC Boilerplates
>>>> "Each stream to which the boilerplate applies, which approves that the
>>>> boilerplate meets its needs": This can be read as the boilerplate 
>>>> approving the
>>>> boilerplate. Not sure how to fix this, but if somebody has a good 
>>>> idea, please
>>>> apply it.
>>
>> I think "Each relevant stream" should do it.
> 
> Would that result in:
> 
> "Each relevant stream to which the boilerplate applies, which approves 
> that the boilerplate meets its needs"

Sorry to have been so terse. I'm suggesting:

###

As part of the RFC Style Guide (see {{RFC7322}} and {{STYLEGUIDE}}),
new or modified RFC boilerplates (see {{RFC7841}}) considered under
version 3 of the RFC Editor Model must be approved by the following
parties, each of which has a separate area of responsibility with
respect to boilerplates:

* Each relevant stream, which approves that the boilerplate meets its needs

###

Here "relevant" (or perhaps "applicable") is shorthand for "to which the 
boilerplate applies"; on reflection, I prefer "applicable stream".

Peter