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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

On 10.03.22 07:33, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Bullet 9 also enumerates specific reasons one might use a "CONCERN" 
> position.  Notably absent from this list is the notion that some 
> aspect of the proposal under consideration is not written with 
> sufficient clarity that it can be understood or unambiguously 
> implemented.  I suggest that such a thing might be a valid reason to 
> hold progress for further discussion, or to return the item to the 
> RSWG for development.  Another possibility is an observation by an 
> RSAB member that the procedures described in this document prior to 
> consideration by the RSAB were not properly followed, which might also 
> be a reason to return the work to the RSWG for further development or 
> other handling.
>
The philosophy behind CONCERNs is that they should be rare, and that the 
community really should be taking responsibility for the content of a 
document.  Thus, unless something truly rises to a threat to a stream or 
the long term health of the series, the RSAB should stay out of the 
way.  Those two CONCERN criteria are sufficiently broad to permit 
members to act if the policy truly looks like it will cause harm in some 
way.

Eliot