Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 10/03/2022, at 1:02 PM, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I gave draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12 a read through, LGTM. I have a few comments and nits:
> 
> 1. In 3.1.1.4 we have
> 
>   The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling to support
>   RSWG communication, decision processes, and policies.
> 
> Is the LLC also requested to provide for necessary staff support, as it does for, e.g., IESG meetings? If not, that implies the RSWG will have to manage its mandated minute-taking and publication on a volunteer basis, something I wouldn’t recommend. If so, it’s probably worth calling out the request for staffing explicitly, or maybe broaden “tooling” to “resources”. (Hopefully all will agree that staff are not “tooling”.)

From memory, this was specifically decided against, on the basis that the RSWG is akin to IETF WGs, which do not receive staff support, while the RSAB is akin to RSOC, which does.  The reference to tooling is, from my reading, to ensure that the RSWG is added to Datatracker etc rather than specifying any form of special tools resourcing.

Jay

> 
> 2. Section 3.2.2 #11 is “A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.” Is it deliberate that as written, a proposal with no YES position would be approved, as long as it had no CONCERNs? It seems to me that “A proposal with at least one YES position and without any CONCERN positions is approved” would be better, but maybe this has been considered and rejected.
> 
> 3. In §3.1.1.4, “The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person or online-only meetings” triggered my inner literalist to complain that it could be read as precluding (say) hybrid meetings. The last sentence in the paragraph is probably good enough to eliminate doubt, but re-wording the quoted sentence like “the RSWG may hold meetings in a variety of formats, including in-person, online-only, or hybrid” might work even better. (Throw “… but not limited to” in after “including” for extra pickiness points if wanted.)
> 
> Nits:
> 
> 4. Section 1, "Whereas stream approving body” is missing a “the" ("Whereas the stream approving body”).
> 
> 5. There’s an “under under” in §1, and an “unless unless” in §3.2.2.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]