IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 145 Re: WGLC Review of the draft

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 07 January 2022 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EFA3A0DA2 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 18:08:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=DUBwCGjZ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=YXVPQPun
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkEBFc4wlSaM for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 18:08:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C783A0D9F for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 18:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD74C5C01D9; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 21:08:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 21:08:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h= message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references:from :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=Y UQYtvQY+LUcRvRHzUYDkSDrB8UnGEORnIo0t2o314s=; b=DUBwCGjZCKBLyi387 7smMPoIwjBaFTFLJY6cDDHyDb6Wg0X7sxmliiJMoVvc3QrH62hTj62S6MWyB+PBz Z1BuKRa9p7A4jVVWE1wfq6TFF9RnK7Np23e0XYBq6CHOICNwYPJxaYHSlMYA8X8U wkJxKDsEj5cFpn5uyTjt2UL5qO+iWK3pV+B2kHUWPbhb1rzsibRnFaDN3js9td+Y 0zUEj8X4C0XcehpuP9CTuA7ic+AK+zNkiYdOjPsfWKI3cNrThexzj6TsDmIVUsjZ +oOyiAw2QJRDXTBZZsum193LOO33Qm8j5k9/NzjuXrhJheM8izxA5T9a6N0ILzVh U3Kow==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YUQYtvQY+LUcRvRHzUYDkSDrB8UnGEORnIo0t2o31 4s=; b=YXVPQPun2OiMzg+tcyU9b+E5xUSAUe0n187xTXDgL2HSf4V+XHDkxVziX Y1HF0T+NZsABnxkSUM+bmKIrIwEjGO9rlzsLqpk+gOvxS/f5HJfarZJ14xoyfvGZ 0KCQBgscLBtOsuyP2+mTrF1ZOIUqtl0tfQxAFDDJXCBlgpgXnd1+jLmyq47UhL3G kGqROF4S4OMqXz9xI58BkDefVRijVuStrA8DiE0TlWHktZjcRC7kf+In33HZB8gX BdVGwTkv2slbeaXkKuh8nKvedqiIohBTDeQ+2HHzvWDYV0A72aJ/Sl1e/daiRoyq sJoSSDOAhrUYM3RdM0DZfPXZnX2kw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:laDXYcAZwkTAcEbkcO1zKVYSXO0RVIL0CqctHd8tJNGZ2g5CPymprQ> <xme:laDXYeiSvS4PNaxhpnZB2KivqeY1MSTye5RSqE8O4EpumrYmDb-OSsK9xahie9-b1 MNipGYaN0fTKaTyHw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:laDXYflU9M3ln5OPlaCOYYXAcL8KlNT5iT_DTI5ytQ0mKKxWewA9INqUvcCXLCkD7Bhjngj-OhMCUBjA9KFX-BkrhHRVF9a5tCXIvhg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudegtddgfeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomheprfgvthgv rhcuufgrihhnthdqtehnughrvgcuoehsthhpvghtvghrsehsthhpvghtvghrrdhimheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheethfdvjedvhfegteeghfefuedufeektedvhfekleelueeh feelkeekkeeiffdunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepshhtphgvthgvrhesshhtphgvthgvrhdrihhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:laDXYSxQz71pu4CyrwNYJROOo1MDZ90sOQfSEpPx2PgDf7MIsvT7VA> <xmx:laDXYRRvIGDJLnaPOG1QhB9TsN6h2xwYzrqCDlczwd37gE1cL9KBEg> <xmx:laDXYdbf8VD7pwmD4L8dQnNtf3qFQW7MWk75q-IUH5JbxxvptBi8pQ> <xmx:laDXYcfK2r9LTdyp0ZywZMsxZjptHx6Qq7rJiXFRtOVeHcccz7sj9A>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 21:08:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <b8ef3df2-ca6b-0a21-0a37-c7718e04fd27@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 19:08:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com> <3983646a-f1bc-d094-0319-a32dd61e1bda@lear.ch> <CABcZeBPBoTdGi73e27Odt9ZdhBW3rUF4px_5Myzn8oL2KyGZYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPBoTdGi73e27Odt9ZdhBW3rUF4px_5Myzn8oL2KyGZYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/ixBy20Go7iD6t1-7OtpjX6cc6Ks>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 145 Re: WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 02:08:28 -0000

On 1/5/22 10:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:58 AM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch 
> <mailto:lear@lear.ch>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi EKR
> 
>     On 04.01.22 01:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>         One way to look at it is that the community call for comment
>>         could
>>         surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so
>>         it's the
>>         responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review
>>         process by
>>         raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community
>>         concerns that
>>         don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.
>>
>>
>>     Yes, that would work for me.
>>
>     So long as it is clear that feedback received as part of a "broader
>     review" may shift consensus,
> 
> 
> Absolutely that should be clear.

I suggest that we fold these considerations into the CFC section, as 
follows:

###

The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during
a community call for comment. If RSAB members conclude that such
comments raise important issues that need to be addressed, they
should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if
the issues either represent a serious problem for one or more of
the individual streams or would cause serious harm to the overall
Series) lodging a position of "CONCERN" during RSAB balloting.

###

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email