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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/1/22 12:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> On 02-Mar-22 07:52, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/1/22 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>>
>> Can we specify (at a high level) what topics are appropriate for
>> rfc-interest as opposed to the RSWG list? Would we envision that rfc-i
>> is more for implementers? We already have a plethora of lists (rfc-i,
>> tools-discuss, xml2rfc-dev, etc.) and it's already unclear where certain
>> topics should be discussed.
> 
> Please not. I don't think we should cover such operational details at all.
> (Do you realise that RFC2026 refers to anonymous FTP and gopher?)
> 
> How about being *less* specific:
> 
>            The RSAB seeks
>            such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to relevant
>            mailing lists.

IIRC folks wanted to know that there was one place such announcements 
were guaranteed to appear (kind of like the new-work list, I suppose).

Peter