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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-03-11, at 02:35, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1. The expectation of this document is that people who know and care about the RFC Series will help to develop RSWG proposals by providing valuable input throughout the process, indeed as early as possible.

I think the unease that Mike expressed is related to my perception:

This is a “nice weather contract”.

You make contracts to describe what happens in a bad situation.
With a view to avoiding such a bad situation in the first place.

The bad situation here is that the RSAB is sidetracked in the RSWG process, either by conscious actions of RSWG players or inadvertently (i.e., the rule changes under consideration have an unintended consequence that wasn’t receiving attention while in the RSWG).

The RSAB MUST be able to stop train-wrecks before they happen.
Formulating non-actionable rules that restrict what they can say is not good, not only because (as Mike pointed out) they force RSAB members to resort to what is essentially process abuse.

Like Mike, I have given up trying to fix this, because the understanding that the opportunity for the process abuse is now an anticipated part of the operation of the RSAB can solve the problem nicely (well, not really “nicely").

Grüße, Carsten