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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 16:36 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
>>> Abstract: It may be worth mentioning the RSCE and the
>>> Editorial Stream  here,
>>> because they are also important and new.
> 
> I suggest adding the following sentences to the Abstract:
> 
>     In addition, several responsibilities previously assigned
> to the "RFC
>     Editor" or, more precisely, the "RFC Editor function" are
> now
>     performed by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
> Editor
>     (RSCE), and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). Finally,
> this
>     document establishes the Editorial Stream for publication
> of future
>     policy definition documents produced through the processes
> defined
>     herein.

Peter, probably a good idea for the reason Martin pointed out,
but this (and the first sentence of 8.1) seem to retire the "RFC
Editor Function" terminology although it is used in other parts
of the document (such as the first paragraph).  While I don't
have a big problem obsoleting the term is that was the intent
(or won't once I get used to it), there does need to be a
comprehensive term that covers the whole shebang in operation
(not the model).  While the details of the RFC Editor Function
are changing with this model -- including a new collection of
alphabet soup-- it is still a plausible term for the collection
of things whose ultimate goal is at least nearly the same as it
has always been.  For that reason, I think I prefer "RFC Editor
Function" to "RFC Whole Shebang", but you or others may have
better ideas than either.

If you want to retain "RFC Editor Function" (I think "function"
in Section 1, first paragraph, is a typo),  then "previously
assigned" is not quite right.

>...

>>> " 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?"
> 
> WFM.

Try "...with this document, [RFC2418] and its successors."  You
really do not want to force an update to this document if 2418
is obsoleted.

>...

  best,
    john