Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: [IAB] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 14:02 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> If you want to retain "RFC Editor Function" (I think
>> "function" in Section 1, first paragraph, is a typo),  then
>> "previously assigned" is not quite right.
> 
> That text was intended to be about the responsibilities, not
> the name.

That makes good sense, but I read it as definitional.  See below.

> Do we feel that we need to (re-)define "RFC Editor Function"
> in this document? (Brian mentions "various documents" but
> where was it defined before?)

I'm not going to spend time looking in other places, but the
Abstract of RFC 4844 (copied, AFAICT, into RFC 8729) does use
the term.  They use lower case as "RFC Editor function", perhaps
because at the time 4844 was written, we had not even separated
things into Streams, much less created a whole cluster of
relevant entities.

Unless we want to invite "RFC Editor [Whole] Shebang", "RFC
Editor [Three-Ring] Circus", or, for the negative among us "RFC
Editor Mess", I think it would be very helpful if, early on, you
said something like 'the entire collection of organizations and
functions that bear on this model and getting RFCs produced is
known as the "RFC Editor Function"'.  I have no opinion about
whether we need get another abbreviation (RFCF? RFCEF?) there or
what it should be.
 
> If so, is it the collective combination of the RSWG, RSAB,
> RPC, RSCE, and IETF LLC when dispatching the responsibilities
> specified in this document?

Yes, I think so but, if you were listing them, I'd say
"including" so as the make the term (and the document) a bit
more future-proof.

best,
   john