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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks. Just to close the loop:

On 28.02.22 09:06, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> "In short:": What follows isn't really any much shorter than what 
> preceded it,
>>>> so the "in short" seems a bit misplaced.
>>>>
>>>> "*  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
>>>>      Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
>>>>      RSAB, RSCE, and RPC."
>>>> Shouldn't the IETF LLC also be mentioned here? My understanding is 
>>>> that the LLC
>>>> can say that something won't work because there's no money for it, 
>>>> but that
>>>> once it has accepted that a policy is implementable with reasonable 
>>>> means, it
>>>> also has to follow this policy.
>>>>
>> The LLC role is described in detail below.  I don't think mention is 
>> necessary here.
>
> Well, things will probably work out either way. But in my view, it 
> would be better if it were clear here that the LLC has to follow 
> accepted policies, too.

We are very careful in the draft *not* to be prescriptive to the LLC as 
a whole.  The board in particular cannot be bound to this document, 
though they can be guided.


>
>
>>>> " 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?"
>>
>> Do we say anything else in that document?
>
> By "this document", I mean draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model and the RFC 
> that it will (hopefully soon) become. Which document do you mean by 
> "that document"?

draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.  Yes.

>
>
>>>> 3.1.2.4.  Vacancies
>>>> This is the part that I'm really still not sure about. First, 
>>>> there's a problem
>>>> with what the text means. Imagine a first 3-month period, during 
>>>> which a second
>>>> 3-month period starts. So far, the text is clear. But let's say 
>>>> then there's a
>>>> third 3-month period, which overlaps with the second one. Does that 
>>>> extend the
>>>> delay again? Or is there only one delay, because the text mentions 
>>>> only one
>>>> delay? This should be clarified. On a higher level, I think the 
>>>> probability of
>>>> these things happening are very low, but in the whole new process, 
>>>> this is one
>>>> of the weakest points.
>>
>> As you are aware, this was painfully negotiated text, and as you 
>> point out, this is a corner case.
>
> I'm definitely aware of all the background, but in my role as a 
> reviewer, I wanted to make sure others are, too.


Ok.

>
>
>>>> 4.3.  RPC Responsibilities
>>>> point 17: "depositing copies on the RFC Editor site both 
>>>> individually and in
>>>> collections": As far as I understand, maintaining the RFC Editor 
>>>> website will
>>>> also be the responsibility of the RPC, but this isn't listed in 
>>>> these points.
>>>> This should be added. The word "depositing" then makes even less 
>>>> sense than it
>>>> does currently, I'd replace it with "publishing".
>> Adding the website responsibility seems reasonable.  The word 
>> "depositing" matters in as much as other repositories are involved, 
>> such as the U.S. Library of Congress or the like.
>
> Yes, but that's covered by the *second* bullet of point 17, reading
> *  depositing copies with external archives
> There, as you say, "depositing" is a very good choice.
>
> My comment was that for the *first* bullet of point 17, "depositing" 
> doesn't make much sense.

Ah ok.  Then I leave this to Peter as well, editorially.

Regards,

Eliot