IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 04 January 2022 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5215C3A1FAA for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFYavbPJtX6e for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CD683A1FC2 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a436.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JT61k1Pv4zDCcR; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 22:58:18 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <03f489e1-1070-bbeb-c6fa-1b1dd1bb60b9@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 22:58:17 +0100
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C8A6AC2-2CB4-45CE-B796-6D95810F5E61@tzi.org>
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com> <87ea0c57-3269-d8ea-90ec-0f91096f1d28@nthpermutation.com> <03f489e1-1070-bbeb-c6fa-1b1dd1bb60b9@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Pms7vCOwYRsQMITEYYG-S9iZJ9Q>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 21:58:25 -0000

The current discussion gets the power relationships wrong.

The underlying fiction is that there will be no late process surprises because the RSAB can participate in the RSWG.

If we bind the RSAB’s hands so it no longer can provide actual supervision later, why would the RSAB members' considerations be listened to in the WG process?

Later in the process, the RSAB needs to shut up as long as the new document is not entirely killing the stream/RFC series.

So, essentially, the RSWG chairs call the shots; the RSAB members are essentially powerless.  (Add a boiling frog to the picture if that doesn’t concern you.)

No, we do need working checks and balances.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email