Re: [Rfced-future] CONCERN positions after RSWG discussion (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Peter:
>
> Hi!  Thanks for such a clear document!
>
>
> One part of the workflow described in §3.2.2 makes me feel uneasy.
> Bullet point 9 says this:
>
>         Because RSAB members are expected to participate in the
>         discussions within the RSWG and to raise any concerns and issues
>         during those discussions, most CONCERN positions should not come
>         as a surprise to the RSWG.
>
> While the statement is true (the concerns and issues should not be a
> surprise), it opens the door to "double jeopardy" [1].
>
> Earlier bullets mention how, participating as individuals, "RSAB
> members will raise any issues or concerns during the development of
> the proposal, and not wait until the RSAB review period" (3), and how
> a proposal advances when the RSWG chairs believe there is rough
> consensus (4).  If the RSAB member raised an issue to the RSWG and
> there was rough consensus not to address it (or another similar
> outcome), why is the RSAB member allowed to bring up the issue *again*
> in the form of a CONCERN position?
>
> The document should explicitly mention that issues already raised and
> discussed in the RSWG should not be brought up again as a CONCERN
> position.
>

What do you believe the impact of this "should" would be?

-Ekr

>
> I didn't follow the discussions on the rfced-future list in detail, so
> this point may have come up before.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>