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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

I have reviewed this document in my capacity as an Area Director, since the
IESG was asked for input.

I don't have much in the way of substantive comments.  It's clear a lot of
work has already gone into this.  Only one thing stood out to me as I read
it:

Section 3.2.2 describes the procedure the RSAB will apply when deciding on
an item forwarded to it by the RSWG.  It is reminiscent of the procedures
used by the IESG when balloting on documents presented to us for review.
In particular, bullet 9 of that process states that an RSAB member can take
up a position called "CONCERN" when there appears to be a matter worthy of
discussion before the proposal can advance.  This mirrors IESG procedures,
where we might place a "DISCUSS" ballot to identify something that might be
harmful if implemented, for example.

Bullet 9 also enumerates specific reasons one might use a "CONCERN"
position.  Notably absent from this list is the notion that some aspect of
the proposal under consideration is not written with sufficient clarity
that it can be understood or unambiguously implemented.  I suggest that
such a thing might be a valid reason to hold progress for further
discussion, or to return the item to the RSWG for development.  Another
possibility is an observation by an RSAB member that the procedures
described in this document prior to consideration by the RSAB were not
properly followed, which might also be a reason to return the work to the
RSWG for further development or other handling.

-MSK, ART AD