Re: [rsab] draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,

Thanks.  I believe we are at Step 6 of Section 3.2.2 of RFC 9280.  It's 
fine to have a shepherd for organizational purposes, to see that the 
process moves forward, but the I don't think it's necessary or 
appropriate to do steps 2 or 6 below.  At step 4 below, the shepherd 
needs to share all comments with the RSAB members so that we 
individually can gauge community response.  We then proceed to steps 7, 
8, and 9 in 3.2.2 of RFC 9280, the last of which is step 5 below.  If 
there are no CONCERNs, we're finished, as per Step 11 in 3.2.2 of 9280.  
How about we worry about steps 12 and beyond if that situation arises.

Eliot

On 16.04.2024 20:26, Russ Housley wrote:

> The RSWG has reached consensus on draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08.  This is the first document that the RSWG will be sending to the RSAB, so Pete and I would like to understand the process.
>
> We believe that the process starts with an email to this mail list.  This is step zero.
>
> Then ...
>
> 1. The secretariat assigns a shepherd.
>
> 2. The shepherd makes an initial review.
>
> 3. The secretariat sends a call for community review for two weeks (or longer if requested by the shepherd).
>
> 4.  The shepherd will review comments, working with the RSWG and authors to address them.
>
> 5. RSAB evaluation, with comments or CONCERN being sent to the RWSG list.  Again, the shepherd will review comments or CONCERN, working with the RSWG and authors to address them.
>
> 6. Shepherd final review to determine whether approval has been achieved.
>
> 7. If approved, the secretariat inform the RPC, RSWG, and possibly others.
>
> Please let us know if this summary matches your plan for the first document.
>
> Russ
>