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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

"RFC Editor Function" is used in other drafts too. I think that dropping this phrase would have many repercussions and we should just keep it.

Regards
    Brian

On 02-Mar-22 17:35, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 16:36 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>>>> Abstract: It may be worth mentioning the RSCE and the
>>>> Editorial Stream  here,
>>>> because they are also important and new.
>>
>> I suggest adding the following sentences to the Abstract:
>>
>>      In addition, several responsibilities previously assigned
>> to the "RFC
>>      Editor" or, more precisely, the "RFC Editor function" are
>> now
>>      performed by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series Consulting
>> Editor
>>      (RSCE), and IETF LLC (alone or in combination). Finally,
>> this
>>      document establishes the Editorial Stream for publication
>> of future
>>      policy definition documents produced through the processes
>> defined
>>      herein.
> 
> Peter, probably a good idea for the reason Martin pointed out,
> but this (and the first sentence of 8.1) seem to retire the "RFC
> Editor Function" terminology although it is used in other parts
> of the document (such as the first paragraph).  While I don't
> have a big problem obsoleting the term is that was the intent
> (or won't once I get used to it), there does need to be a
> comprehensive term that covers the whole shebang in operation
> (not the model).  While the details of the RFC Editor Function
> are changing with this model -- including a new collection of
> alphabet soup-- it is still a plausible term for the collection
> of things whose ultimate goal is at least nearly the same as it
> has always been.  For that reason, I think I prefer "RFC Editor
> Function" to "RFC Whole Shebang", but you or others may have
> better ideas than either.
> 
> 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.
> 
>> ...
> 
>>>> " The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional
>>>> tooling   (e.g., GitHub as specified in [RFC8874]), forms
>>>> of communication, and   working methods (e.g., design
>>>> teams) as long as they are consistent   with [RFC2418]."
>>>> Should this read "as long as they are consistent with [RFC
>>>> 2418] and this document?"
>>
>> WFM.
> 
> Try "...with this document, [RFC2418] and its successors."  You
> really do not want to force an update to this document if 2418
> is obsoleted.
> 
>> ...
> 
>    best,
>      john
>