Re: [Rfced-future] CONCERN positions after RSWG discussion (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

 On March 9, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:


> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > Peter:
> >
> > Hi! Thanks for such a clear document!
> >
> >
> > One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
> > Bullet point 9 says this:
> >
> > Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
> > discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
> > during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
> > as a surprise to the RSWG.
> >
> > While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
> > surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].
> >
> > Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
> > members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
> > the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
> > a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
> > consensus (4). If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
> > there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
> > outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
> > in the form of a CONCERN position?
> >
> > The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
> > discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
> > position.
>
> What do you believe the impact of this "should" would be?

It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been
considered by the RSWG.


Alvaro.