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

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

On 3/9/22 5:44 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 10/03/2022, at 1:39 PM, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2022, at 7:06 PM, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. In 3.1.1.4 we have
>>>>
>>>> The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
>>>> RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.
>>>>
>>>> Is the LLC also requested to provide for necessary staff support, as it does for, e.g., IESG meetings? If not, that implies the RSWG will have to manage its mandated minute-taking and publication on a volunteer basis, something I wouldn’t recommend. If so, it’s probably worth calling out the request for staffing explicitly, or maybe broaden “tooling” to “resources”. (Hopefully all will agree that staff are not “tooling”.)
>>>
>>>  From memory, this was specifically decided against, on the basis that the RSWG is akin to IETF WGs, which do not receive staff support, while the RSAB is akin to RSOC, which does.  The reference to tooling is, from my reading, to ensure that the RSWG is added to Datatracker etc rather than specifying any form of special tools resourcing.
>>
>> Yes, I had crossed up the RSWG and the RSAB in my mind when I wrote that. Thanks for the clarification. However, when I look at §3.1.2.6, on the RSAB’s Mode of Operation, I see the same “tooling” language:
>>
>>    The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
>>    RSAB communication, decision processes, and policies.
>>
>> So, I’m not immediately seeing “RSAB… which does”?
> 
> "staff support" could certainly be added there.

This seems right. I might have committed a copy-paste error here.

Peter