Re: [Rswg] Making progress on RFC 7991-bis

Hi, 

Thanks for the summary and effort to move forward. Please see one comment online and replies to your questions below.

> Am 02.08.2022 um 19:07 schrieb Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>:
> 
> 
> Hi folks, Chairs here.
> 
> We've been watching the discussion about RFC 7991-bis and wanted to
> see if we could help guide the discussion towards consensus.
> 
> PROCESS
> Under Section 3 of RFC 9280 the evolution of RFC format is the
> responsibility of this WG as:
> 
>    Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but
>    are not limited to, document formats, processes for publication and
>    dissemination of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series.
> 
> With the publication of RCC 9280, the IAB no longer has a direct role
> in setting the policies for the RFC series, as stated in Section 3.1.1.4:
> 
>    The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in
>    order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
>    Editor Model.
> 
> Thus, it would not be appropriate for the IAB to publish an RFC
> that obsoletes RFC 7991, as RFC 7991 expresses policy:
> 
>    The v3 format will be used as part of the new RFC Series format
>    described in [RFC6949].

I disagree here. This sentence is already in rfc7991 and not updated by rfc7991bis. All changes in rfc7991bis are not intended to change policy and I don’t think they do. I see them as bug fixes what exact the purpose of a bis document is.

> 
> Any such document needs to come out of this WG.
> 
> RFC 9280 does not specify a precise line between policy and
> implementation detail, but ultimately it is up to this WG to devise a
> process for evolving the format, subject to approval by RSAB; this might
> include delegating some detailed decisions to the RPC.
> 
> 
> SUBSTANTIVE
> On the substantive matter, we find ourselves in a somewhat difficult
> situation: RFC 7991 defines a format and directs the RPC to use it but
> we are actually using the format defined in
> draft-irse-draft-irse-xml2rfcv3-implemented-01 [0].  This format does
> not have the consensus of the community, it is merely the result of
> decisions made when the tools were written.
> 
> We see broad agreement in the WG that it is necessary to define a new
> format (that could of course be very similar to what we are currently
> using) that has community consensus. The consensus document would go
> through the RFC 9280 process and be published in the Editorial stream.
> 
> This work will of course take some time, but we have already published
> RFCs in the format defined in draft-irse- and nobody has seriously
> suggested that we cease publishing RFCs until a community consensus
> format is published. This makes it necessary to document that
> format. We do not see the WG as currently having consensus on
> the precise manner in which we do so. In particular, the chairs would
> ask people to focus on two questions.
> 
> 1. Do we need to publish the current de facto format as an
>    RFC or should it be in some other form such as an I-D
>    or a Web page?

Yes we need an rfc because otherwise please will keep looking at rfc7991 which is just wrong (and I don’t want to give any estimate how long it will take to publish a new format version).
>    
> 2. Should we just publish the de facto format as-is
>    or should we make limited changes prior to the completion of
>    a more complete format document? If the latter, what process
>    should we use to vet those changes?

Please no changes. Any changes will need to be implemented and tested. That’s not the goal of this exercises. Let’s just document a snapshot of what we have right now. This will be the clearest starting point for new format work.

Mirja

> 
> - Pete and Eric (as chairs)
> 
> 
> [0] At least approximately. We are not making any claims that this
> document is entirely accurate.
> 
> [1] Strictly speaking, we could not publish any RFCs until (2) was
> completed, but I doubt anyone wants that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> rswg mailing list
> rswg@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rswg