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

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

On 3/1/22 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2/10/22 7:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>      > Hi Paul,
>      >
>      >
>      > On 09.02.22 17:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>      >> Greetings again. The structures proposed in this document seem
>     like a
>      >> very good way forward. The level of detail about the
>     expectations on
>      >> each group is a good balance in prescriptiveness.
>      >>
>      >> Two small thoughts on the current draft:
>      >>
>      >> The future status of the rfc-interest mailing list is unclear; see
>      >> Section 3.2.3. Given it s current contents, I could see that it
>     would
>      >> easily become a parallel track for discussions that should be on
>     the
>      >> RSWG mailing list. It might be good to close (and certainly
>     archive!)
>      >> rfc-interest unless it becomes more moderated by someone pointing
>      >> discussions to the RSWG.
>      >
>      > I like the idea of at least having some RSWG participation to point
>      > people to the right place, when necessary.
> 
>     Keeping the rfc-interest list and starting a new list for the RSWG
>     might
>     indeed lead to confusion.
> 
>     Here is a proposed change:
> 
>     OLD
> 
>          The RSAB seeks
>          such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the rfc-interest
>          mailing list or to its successor or future equivalent.
> 
>     NEW
> 
>          The RSAB seeks
>          such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the mailing
>     list of
>          the RSWG (which should supersede the current rfc-interest list).
> 
> 
> I actually don't agree with this. I think the WG should have a separate list
> that is moderated by the chairs. The rfc-interest list can continue, but
> I think the new model deserves a new list.

Can we specify (at a high level) what topics are appropriate for 
rfc-interest as opposed to the RSWG list? Would we envision that rfc-i 
is more for implementers? We already have a plethora of lists (rfc-i, 
tools-discuss, xml2rfc-dev, etc.) and it's already unclear where certain 
topics should be discussed.

Peter