From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Rswg] Re: RFC 9280: success or failure? And how would we
 know?
Thread-Index: AQHbO6gh7+v8l5sjQEejAy6tuwKCa7LBeJKAgFmF24CAABX+AA==
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:54:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D9F44A79-6C74-4625-B71E-18A62BAD8A57@icann.org>
References: <d8c57185-147e-44a2-b244-de4f7952974f@lear.ch>
 <354A833D-3FD6-45E5-BCC8-FADC74296308@tzi.org>
 <6f5520da-79f7-4aa4-9e4b-284b76966e2c@gmail.com>
 <202c628a-59f7-4044-881c-dd0408645994@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <202c628a-59f7-4044-881c-dd0408645994@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2CDC5AB38386D040A079D1FEF5DCD074@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: OE3NN4OU4GXVJP2K5BGF2PWLWCQW2SAR
CC: RSWG <rswg@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BRswg=5D_Re=3A_=5BExt=5D_Re=3A_RFC_9280=3A_success_or_failure=3F?=
 =?utf-8?q?_And_how_would_we_know=3F?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/agrBZJXyxXb4PRuPSMZAHF49GCc>

On Jan 16, 2025, at 16:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> This unresolved thread has been nagging at me for many weeks. I would lik=
e to make a concrete proposal for a clarifying addition to section 3 of RFC=
 9280:
>=20
> Existing text:
>=20
> "Policies under the purview of the RSWG and RSAB might include, but are n=
ot limited to, document formats, processes for publication and disseminatio=
n of RFCs, and overall management of the RFC Series."
>=20
> Proposed addition:
>=20
> "Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for ex=
ample specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such ma=
tters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other workin=
g practices, as discussed in section 4.2 of [RFC9280], with community consu=
ltation as for other tools and services supported by IETF LLC [RFC8711]."
>=20
> I believe this would clarify the scope of the RSWG and allow the RPC to m=
ake progress on various technical issues that are currently in limbo.
>=20
> (At the same time we could also enact erratum #7795.)
>=20
> This could make a very short RFC updating RFC 9280]

This could, but we already know that there are other additions that people =
in the WG have requested. I had started a 9280bis document last summer, but=
 didn't submit it due to the WG going off in different directions. With you=
r proposal above, and with the imminent publication of draft-rswg-rfc7990-u=
pdates, I have now submitted <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffma=
n-rfc9280-updates/>, which the RSWG might adopt.

Your text is in Section 3. If the WG wants to work on the material suggeste=
d in Sections 4 and/or 5, great, but if not, we could probably close out th=
is draft fairly quickly.

--Paul Hoffman