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

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Tue, 01 March 2022 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEF63A0AE9 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:24:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vo5nAzX0iv5R for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26C533A0AA0 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.129] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 221JOLVJ547302 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:24:21 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1646162662; bh=i5gvHYrW9yL6owLFYrJlytI1UqfRnxd4bTLSNcxFtDk=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Gk3OSlfLF+Be4bv6izoIu7SlEKwEjHKR86EPRTvWJmGFD/RZlYkgsNPTvulC+SU95 F7NqW/OBS7EQxPwtxu18Z9nI9SAHE440wvDHuutY2DHoX9bKh8CRmYeBGz1wDJR8ik 6hEQ4UfdRiXtcxi7NI0SPGV/7SG/H11EPsOmv+/Y=
Message-ID: <b8e8bbbe-ce25-a696-9a02-c9b038b004e1@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 20:24:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, rfced-future@iab.org
References: <164579171829.24424.11911193648846995596@ietfa.amsl.com> <D68950D9-7010-46FA-8E3C-6B1C5D6AA734@kuehlewind.net> <5631b70e-51c4-fb85-a521-9740d8874c31@lear.ch> <7f46c71f-65af-f470-47f7-bb96d5827d39@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <974fc6b1-33f0-938f-5a9f-6ee071c30590@lear.ch> <1c660211-cbb8-5e39-5195-c9f79f27807a@stpeter.im>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <1c660211-cbb8-5e39-5195-c9f79f27807a@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------ptsFdCEO6i8MkmgCGwfVejSb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/bpAS_pp38-PZg3osPOSL9OS_mKU>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [IAB] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:24:29 -0000

Just on this point:

On 01.03.22 20:15, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, we could tweak it as follows:
>
> OLD
>
>    *  Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
>       be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
>       a maximum of 3 months.  If during this 3-month period a further
>       vacancy arises, the delay should be extended by up to another 3
>       months.  After the delay period expires, the RSAB should continue
>       to process documents as described below.
>
> NEW
>
>    *  Voting on approval of policy documents produced by the RSWG shall
>       be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have been filled, up to
>       a maximum of 3 months.  If during this or any subsequent delay
>       period a further vacancy arises, the delay period should be
>       extended by up to another 3 months.  After the delay period
>       expires, the RSAB should continue to process documents as
>       described below.
>
> But this would introduce the possibility of an infinite delay period, 
> which seems suboptimal even if highly unlikely. 

Unless there is a lot of support the other way, I would prefer the OLD 
to the NEW.

Eliot