Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

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

On 1/5/22 6:44 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 19:43 -0500 Scott Bradner
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>   Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> However, I don't see exactly where it talks about advance
>> notification for "other working group meetings". I must be
>> missing something obvious.
>>
>> 7.1. Session documents
>>
>>     All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should
>> be    published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two
>> weeks before    a session starts.  Any document which does not
>> meet this publication    deadline can only be discussed in a
>> working group session with the    specific approval of the
>> working group chair(s).  Since it is    important that working
>> group members have adequate time to review all    documents,
>> granting such an exception should only be done under
>> unusual conditions.  The final session agenda should be posted
>> to the    working group mailing list at least two weeks before
>> the session and    sent at that time to [e-mail] for
>> publication on the IETF web    site.
> 
> Of course, in addition to whatever properties it might have as a
> model of clarity, the rules of that section may be a rather good
> candidate for the set of IETF procedural requirements that are
> most often completely ignored, and ignored without any
> consequences.  :-(.  In particular, if this group were required
> to follow IETF WG rules, IIR that document availability rule has
> been violated more than once.
> 
> In any event, the RSWG is _not_ an IETF working group, so it is
> not clear how applicable RFC 2418 is.   In particular, a decent
> protocol or procedure lawyer could easily claim that anything
> the RSWG does is "consistent with RFC 2418". Because 2418 says
> nothing about non-IETF WGs, anything such a body is consistent
> with its specifications.   Add to that the observation that, if
> we are lucky, 2418bis might actually be approved reasonably
> early in the RSWG's life, requiring that provisions of this
> document and the normative reference be noticed and updated, and
> I'd argue for making this provision self-contained.  That might
> be just Peter's text at the beginning of this thread plus
> 
> * A statement about how far in advance any relevant documents
> are supposed to be available.

I think this is covered by a pointer to the IESG guidelines.

> * A statement that notification should be to all of the lists
> used by the RSAB/RSWG for other purposes. 

I wonder if such notifications could become rather spammy, if for 
instance the RSWG meets three times a year.

> That list should
> either be enumerated in the document or, better, the RSAB
> charged with maintaining such a list and keeping it publicly
> available.

The latter seems good.

Peter