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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your review.  On the whole, most of your comments are 
editorial, and Peter should review.  There are a handful that are not, 
and I will comment on them here:

On 25.02.22 13:35, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>
>> I think I might have asked that question somewhere already, but is it 
>> clear
>> where April Fool RFCs go?

April Fools RFCs are sent to and considered by the ISE in consultation 
with the RPC.


>> "In short:": What follows isn't really any much shorter than what 
>> preceded it,
>> so the "in short" seems a bit misplaced.
>>
>> "*  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
>>      Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
>>      RSAB, RSCE, and RPC."
>> Shouldn't the IETF LLC also be mentioned here? My understanding is 
>> that the LLC
>> can say that something won't work because there's no money for it, 
>> but that
>> once it has accepted that a policy is implementable with reasonable 
>> means, it
>> also has to follow this policy.
>>
The LLC role is described in detail below.  I don't think mention is 
necessary here.


>>
>> " The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling
>>   (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms of communication, and
>>   working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent
>>   with [RFC2418]."
>> Should this read "as long as they are consistent with [RFC 2418] and this
>> document?"

Do we say anything else in that document?


>>
>> 3.1.2.4.  Vacancies
>> This is the part that I'm really still not sure about. First, there's 
>> a problem
>> with what the text means. Imagine a first 3-month period, during 
>> which a second
>> 3-month period starts. So far, the text is clear. But let's say then 
>> there's a
>> third 3-month period, which overlaps with the second one. Does that 
>> extend the
>> delay again? Or is there only one delay, because the text mentions 
>> only one
>> delay? This should be clarified. On a higher level, I think the 
>> probability of
>> these things happening are very low, but in the whole new process, 
>> this is one
>> of the weakest points.

As you are aware, this was painfully negotiated text, and as you point 
out, this is a corner case.


>>
>> 4.3.  RPC Responsibilities
>> point 17: "depositing copies on the RFC Editor site both individually 
>> and in
>> collections": As far as I understand, maintaining the RFC Editor 
>> website will
>> also be the responsibility of the RPC, but this isn't listed in these 
>> points.
>> This should be added. The word "depositing" then makes even less 
>> sense than it
>> does currently, I'd replace it with "publishing".
Adding the website responsibility seems reasonable.  The word 
"depositing" matters in as much as other repositories are involved, such 
as the U.S. Library of Congress or the like.


>>
>> 8.2.  RFC Series Editor
>>   Implied by the changes outlined in the previous section, the
>>   responsibilities of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) as a person or role
>>   (contrasted with the overall "RFC Editor function") are now split or
>>   shared among the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, and IETF LLC (alone or in
>>   combination).
>> In this list, the RSCE should also be mentioned, because the RFC 
>> Series Editor
>> also had consulting/advisory roles, and these are now held by the RSCE.

I think that's fair.  Others?

Eliot