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

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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.

-Ekr

>
> >> Someone is going to have to tool the tracking for RSWG documents after
> >> they leave the RSWG, given that this is a new process. That might be
> >> informal (but public) tracking, but I suspect that formally tracking
> >> the various rfc799*-bis documents will prevent later issues from
> >> arising based on missed cross-dependencies. Maybe adding a sentence or
> >> two about this to the current draft will keep it in our minds as we
> >> move forward.
> >
> > Good idea.  Perhaps something along the lines, “The LLC is requested to
> > provide necessary tooling to support RSWG and RSAB decision processes
> > and policies.”
>
> WFM, although editorially I'll split up the RSWG and RSAB requests,
> placing them in the respective "Mode of Operation" sections.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>