Re: [rsab] Draft minutes of the 2022-11-07 RSAB Meeting

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

> On 22. Nov 2022, at 15:12, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 21 Nov 2022, at 21:39, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jay, see below.
>> 
>>> On 21. Nov 2022, at 12:32, Jay Daley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 21 Nov 2022, at 11:26, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I have a few comments and also a question:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> First the question, the minutes does not list the observers. Do we want that?
>>>> 
>>>> For IAB calls we usually do that; however, in a call it’s easier to see the name but also if the overseer logged in with a anonymised name, we may try to figure who that is but I believe would list it if we can figure it out. Or Cindy?
>>>> 
>>>> In this case for these RSAB minutes, maybe we should at least add Paul Hoffman because he did speak up..? This is not noted in the minutes but not sure we should omit this entirely?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And other comment on this part of the discussion:
>>>> 
>>>> "Sandy Ginoza said that she hopes that stream managers will look at 
>>>>   this when they review their documents. 
>>>> 
>>>>   Lars Eggert replied that the IESG doesn't review the XML; they look at 
>>>>   the HTML or text versions, so it will really be on the RPC and authors 
>>>>   to catch things.
>>>> 
>>>>   Sandy Ginoza asked if it would help to have idnits highlight where 
>>>>   those characters appear.
>>>> 
>>>>   Lars Eggert replied that adding that to idnits would be very noisy.
>>>> 
>>>>   Robert Sparks agreed that idnits was not the right place for this, but 
>>>>   agreed that the tooling should be able to tell the authors if there is 
>>>>   something to pay attention to there.”
>>>> 
>>>> I actually think Cindy didn’t directly ask that the stream managers (do we now call them stream representatives?) review the XML but that they could help making a decision if a text is part of the protocol spec or only information, where in the first case <u> should be used. My understanding of this discussion was that the RPC would flag any such cases to the stream managers during their review.
>>>> 
>>>> Also about idnits. I believe the outcome was that the tool could add a waring if any <u> us used but should not create a warning for each use of <u>. And that the RPC will follow up with tools team on this.
>>>> 
>>>> If this is the common understand of others as well, I think we need to update the minutes a bit.
>>> 
>>> It is xml2rfc that will have this warning not idnits.  Putting that aside though, I would not like to see that level of detail in the minutes because it suggests that the RSAB is either managing the tools development in some way, or expecting the tools team to report to them.
>> 
>> Yes, I was not requesting to have this level of detail in the minutes. I was just checking about our common understanding. I’m happy to leave the decision to the RPC and tools team, but for my understanding: why is idnits not the right place? Not all authors use xml2rfc but all have to submit in the datatracker and will see the idnits outcome at submission time.
> 
> idnits only works on plaintext I-Ds.  Only xml2rfc reads the XML and so it the only tool that can say if a non-ASCII character is wrapped in a <u> or not.  

Okay that makes a lot of sense to me now! Thanks! I wasn’t really aware of this but given how the tool evolved that makes sense.

I guess a future version should maybe also work on the xml but that entirely different topic and not for us to discuss in this group now.


> 
> Jay
> 
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jay
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Also I think we should also not in the minutes that the RPC has raised the issue on the RSAB mailing list and discussion indicated that the tooling should follow the RFC. However, this discussion now also raised the issue that the RSAB need a more clearly defined decision process for these kind of issues.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And one minor comment on this:
>>>> 
>>>> "Sandy Ginoza noted that some recent IAB-stream documents had updates 
>>>>     that were fairly time consuming. The RPC will offer some proposals 
>>>>     on how to make this better.”
>>>> 
>>>> To be more clear it should probably be:
>>>> 
>>>> "Sandy Ginoza noted that some recent IAB-stream documents had updates 
>>>>     that were fairly time consuming. The RPC will offer some proposals to the IAB
>>>>     on how to make this better. The IAB will discuss and decide about updates.”
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And then one more comment on inclusive language bit:
>>>> 
>>>> "Sandy Ginoza replied that it was flagged in the NIST document, and 
>>>>     the RPC can point to that more directly.”
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe this is for Sandy to decide what should go into the minutes. I think Sandy said that we will review the text they use again, however, the text at least already point to the NIST doc.
>>>> 
>>>> As a follow up from the discussion, here is an example from an recent IAB document:
>>>> 
>>>> "Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>> 
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.  For example, please consider
>>>> whether "Whiteboxes" should be updated.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, please consider whether "traditionally" should be updated for
>>>> clarity.  While the NIST website 
>>>> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1 <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>> 
>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  
>>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.”
>>>> 
>>>> This text seems pretty good as it especially explains also with “traditionally" is flagged. The term Toreless was then discussing was “native”. How do you decide with text to use in the AUTH48 mail?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to Cindy! Thanks to all!
>>>> Mirja
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19. Nov 2022, at 12:27, Alexis Rossi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looks good to me
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2022, at 9:21 PM, Cindy Morgan <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I hope you all had uneventful travels back from London. Attached please find draft minutes from the RSAB meeting that was held during IETF 115.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <2022-11-07-rsab-minutes.txt>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any changes or corrections.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Cindy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> RSAB mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> RSAB mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> RSAB mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jay Daley
>>> IETF Executive Director
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> -- 
>>> RSAB mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>