Re: [Rfced-future] Program Last Call Results and Next Steps

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

Please publish the new draft.  As I read each edit, they are for 
clarity, and no substantial change is made.

Eliot

On 01.02.22 03:42, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Dear Chairs & all,
>
> This evening I completed an editorial review of the entire document, 
> in the process finding a relatively small number of minor errors, 
> infelicities, and inconsistencies. Fixes for these matters will be 
> included in the next version. Those interested can find them here:
>
> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/153/commits/fd05f83f69e959c7d05f77ecbd6c55c23eaa362e 
>
>
> I'll wait to hear from the chairs before submitting version -11.
>
> Peter
>
> On 1/31/22 4:22 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Program last call has now closed.
>>
>> We received one set of editorial comments from Brian Carpenter. I 
>> want to detail the proposed changes here, and their disposition for 
>> the next draft, which we are asking Peter to post now.  Once posted, 
>> we will forward that draft to the IAB for further processing.
>>
>>> "3.1.1.2. Participation
>>> ...This includes participants in the IETF and IRTF, IAB and IESG 
>>> members, individuals who use RFCs in procurement decisions, authors 
>>> of RFCs and Internet-Drafts, developers of tools used to author 
>>> RFCs, scholarly researchers, and so on."
>>>
>>> I notice that implementers of code or hardware based on RFCs are not 
>>> listed. That seems like a significant omission. 
>>
>> Peter has expanded the list for consultation as follows:
>>
>>> This includes but is not limited to participants in the IETF and
>>>
>>> IRTF, members of the IAB and IESG, developers of software or hardware
>>>
>>> systems that implement RFCs, authors of RFCs and Internet-Drafts,
>>>
>>> developers of tools used to author or edit RFCs, individuals who
>>>
>>> use RFCs in procurement decisions, scholarly researchers, and
>>>
>>> representatives of standards development organizations other than
>>>
>>> the IETF and IRTF. The IETF LLC Board members, staff and contractors
>>>
>>> (especially representatives of the RFC Production Center), and the
>>>
>>> IETF Executive Director are invited to participate as community
>>>
>>> members in the RSWG to the extent permitted by any relevant IETF LLC
>>>
>>> policies. Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate
>>>
>>> actively.
>>
>> This text represents a move of some text from later in the draft, but 
>> the normative constructs have not changed.
>>
>>>
>>> The explanation might or might not be actionable."
>>>
>>> I think that sentence might or might not be actionable. In other 
>>> words, it's a no-op. 
>>
>> This is text that we have discussed: the implication intended here is 
>> that the proposal taken as a whole may be so flawed that no textual 
>> change would correct it.  For example: “All future RFCs SHALL only be 
>> published in Klingon".
>>
>> Peter has proposed the following change:
>>
>>> Nevertheless, the RSWG might not be able to
>>>
>>> come to consensus on modifications that will address the RSAB member's
>>>
>>> concern.
>>>
>> A missing parenthesis as noted, and a spelling error was corrected.  
>> An internal reference {#} was added.  Some spacing was modified.
>>
>> These represent the entirety of proposed changes to the text.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>