Re: [Rfced-future] Thank you and closure of the RFC Future Program

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Overtaken by events. :-) See you all on the RSWG list:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rswg/about/

On 7/8/22 1:03 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> <as individual>
> I think it would be improper to have any substantive discussion of RSWG 
> issues on this list.
> 
> That means there is no venue for RSWG issues until the new list is 
> created and announced.  I think that’s fine.
> 
> I think this list should be shut down.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/8/22 12:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> --On Friday, July 8, 2022 11:57 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/22 7:02 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, all. Will this e-mail list be deactivated?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We did not discuss that (and it's a good question).  As you
>>>>> know the IETF is very good at not closing lists if people
>>>>> find them useful. Considering there is a new list being set
>>>>> up for the new WG, is this one still useful for any
>>>>> reason?  So how about this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone think the list should remain open and useful for
>>>>> some purpose?  If so, ideally state why too and I can take
>>>>> that feedback back to the IAB.  Silence by everyone will
>>>>> likely result in closing the list (IMHO, not IAB-HO).
>>>>
>>>> I see no reason to keep this list open - our work is done here
>>>> and attention will now move to the RSWG (once that list is
>>>> announced).
>>> Agreed, but that is, IMO, the other piece of the answer, which
>>> is that this list should not be shut down until the RSWG one is
>>> created and announced.
>>
>> Hopefully that will happen soon.
>>
>> Given that the work of the Program is complete, discussing substantive 
>> matters on this list could be confusing, but I suppose there's no harm 
>> in doing so temporarily. I leave that to the Program chairs or IAB.
>>
>>> If the RSWG is simply going to use
>>> rfc-interest, than that should be said and it would be ok to
>>> shut this list down as soon as convenient. On the other hand,
>>> if the RSWG is not going to use rfc-interest for its list, one
>>> of its first activities should be defining, presumably in
>>> consultation with the RPC, just exactly where the boundary
>>> between its list and rfc-interest falls and update the
>>> descriptions of both list to reflect that explanation.
>>
>> I suppose that's all up to the new RSWG chairs, whomever they may be. 
>> I doubt we'll need to wait all that long in any case.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future 
>> <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>