Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12

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

Working my way from the end of the thread to the beginning...

On 3/10/22 1:28 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> I'm only addressing points on which I have a view here:
> 
> On 10.03.22 08:12, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> I just mention it as a potential route to process deadlock.  Can the RSAB
>> function with no chair?

Probably. As Eliot says, the RSAB chair mainly coordinates meetings of 
the RSAB.

>> I would like to assume that streams would 
>> pull and
>> replace their reps that behave badly, but when designing systems try to
>> remove classes of failure scenarios by construction, when possible.
> 
> It's really not necessary to worry about this.  Because the streams 
> themselves require the proper functioning of the RFC editor, they're not 
> likely to argue much over this, and just pick someone. The RSAB chair 
> function is relatively weak, it's primary function being to convene 
> meetings. 

Agreed.

>> It's getting late here, so maybe I'm just missing things, but while this
>> does seem to be an improvement, it still seems to have somewhat of a
>> mismatch with §4.3's depiction.  If I understand correctly, the RPC only
>> cares about value assignments insamuch as the values being assigned get
>> recorded in the RFCs being produced, and your new proposal doesn't 
>> mention
>> documents/RFCs (other than this one) at all.
> 
> "This document requires that the RPC document registry value
> assignments made by IANA."

That's pretty much what it said before, no? ;-)

I suggest this in the "RPC Responsibilities" section:

14. Ensuring that RFCs accurately document registry value assignments
     made by IANA.

For the avoidance of doubt, we could also say the same thing under the 
IANA considerations.

>>>> My understanding is that the current preference is to use the term
>>>> "disabilities" rather than "special needs".
>> Please don't forget this one.
> 
> I leave it to Peter to address this point.  I have no special knowledge 
> or wisdom here.

Further research indicates to me that "people with disabilities" is 
indeed the term of art these days.

>> I was trying to say that 8730 is currently listed as only an informative
>> reference, but it seems like it would be more properly classified as a
>> normative reference.

I'll move RFC 8730 from informative to normative.

Peter