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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

If you are asking that the wording be strengthened to prohibit the RSAB 
from raising a CONCERN about any issue that has been discussed by the 
RSWG, then I strongly disagree with such a sugestion.  (If you mean 
something else, then please clarify.)

The whole point of the RSAB is to look at things from a separate 
perspective.  While we hope and expect them to raise things with the 
RSWG during discussion, doing so does not mean that they are not allowed 
to have that CONCERN.

And conversely, failing to have raised the issue does not prevent them 
from raising it.  While we dislike late surprises, it is clearly better 
to raise it during the process rather than discover afterwards that we 
have a serious problem.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Note that an AD having raised an issue with a working group during 
document development does not prevent him from raising it again as a 
DISCUSS if he feels it is important enough.

On 3/9/2022 4:00 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>   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.
>