IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rsab] Revised document approval process

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 18 April 2024 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E4DC151088 for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 02:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kuehlewind.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WP_7I_HfNlZr for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 02:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [80.237.130.35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87EE6C14F71A for <RSAB@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 02:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kuehlewind.net; s=he234030; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: In-Reply-To:References; bh=Qo1uITDe5S9zb/mZiCC37YJvGj3u0cWcw+gfGE+iqZ0=; t=1713431906; x=1713863906; b=XU2FtTCt0FbiNV/eeUGYMUNGK6vQ4XKfujMESCF8qoZfdCv lGYaGupHHlz/KFiJRTYrU6Gr0Xy9+URnPZqTjA83qaxSgqanPI6jzsOTtWM6yTJub6y7O+BnZ+GyK WLBg1e8R/iuN8XFUDKqI+a+EmQMjnWHIGTLP+ltMRsmYV9as80p/ryRrxz2Ao0nHfCZFvvKGDgDLu jDTMED8foVKsk8QfDOYIPK7ppru2re4qEULMVFEAgCbgPEkUqOiyx4ad7m3z3cpqqos3cpJjaEwKM XNFcIYoCJLWgsZdMf/RU+TAtuHc2cThLfLu/FjkIAb1jdpKyLuXAu/8fkfc0hVGg==;
Received: from dslb-002-207-003-144.002.207.pools.vodafone-ip.de ([2.207.3.144] helo=smtpclient.apple); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1rxNuR-00057A-R4; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:18:24 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <acbff92b-a135-483f-924b-1d6bdc53985b@lear.ch>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:18:12 +0200
Cc: RSAB@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F901893E-5A86-4004-8688-7E69C3098990@kuehlewind.net>
References: <63333FC8-786D-4506-BA36-A48EC240B075@kuehlewind.net> <acbff92b-a135-483f-924b-1d6bdc53985b@lear.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1713431906;db602e75;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1rxNuR-00057A-R4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rsab/PzJ5e02pEFdG0g3O3MvyStYcR6Q>
Subject: Re: [rsab] Revised document approval process
X-BeenThere: rsab@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RFC Series Approval Board \(RSAB\)" <rsab.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rsab/>
List-Post: <mailto:rsab@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:18:52 -0000

Yes, I also noticed now that I started looking at the document we have, that the shepherd should probably confirm with the RSAB in both cases, if additional lists should be added but also if no lists need be added. So agreed!


> On 18. Apr 2024, at 10:54, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja
> 
> All good except:
> 
> On 17.04.2024 16:39, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
>> The shepherd is also responsible to check if any “extra care” is needed (see Alexis mail and RFC9280 3.2.3) and additional mailing lists should be added in the community call. If the shepherd believes this is needed, he/she should reconfirm by email with RSAB and ensure the secretariat is aware (by using the comment field in datatracker when changing the state).
> 
> The shepherd should manage a discussion about this with the RSAB.  The shepherd's views are not to be taken above those of the RSAB members'.
> 
> Eliot
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email