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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  On March 9, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:07 PM Alvaro Retana 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?
>
> It would avoid the re-discussion of issues that have already been
> considered by the RSWG.
>

My question is whether it would have any actual force in terms of
prohibiting them from reraising it or would just an exhortation with
nothing backing it up.

-Ekr


>
>
> Alvaro.
>