[Rswg] Re: [rsab] Re: The description of the rfc-interest list

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, January 24, 2025 17:24 +0100 "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> Please see one more note below.
> 
>> On 24. Jan 2025, at 16:25, Jean Mahoney
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> On 1/23/25 10:26 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> --On Friday, January 24, 2025 16:41 +1300 Jay Daley
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi John
>>>> 
>>>>> On 24 Jan 2025, at 15:41, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jean,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While an update is definitely in order, I see a problem with the
>>>>> description below.  We seem to be creating more and more lists
>>>>> to specialize work and let people follow only those things in
>>>>> which they are interested.   That involves tradeoffs that don't
>>>>> always work, but, given the separate rfc-interest, RSWG, and
>>>>> RSAB lists, no going back now.  However, and especially given
>>>>> the extended discussions on the RSWG list about the
>>>>> policy/operations boundary, having the RSAB use the
>>>>> rfc-interest list to solicit comments on policy proposals,
>>>>> etc., seems to me to be backwards -- effectively forcing
>>>>> everyone who cares about RFC policy issues to follow both lists
>>>>> and probably encouraging policy discussions on rfc-interest and
>>>>> operational discussions on RSWG.
>> 
>> [JM] RFC 9280 explicitly mentions rfc-interest as a venue where
>> the RSAB can solicit community comments on RSWG documents:
>> 
>>   The RSAB should actively seek a wide range of input.  The RSAB
>>   seeks such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the
>>   [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])
>>   email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent.
>> 
>> Although RFC 9280 doesn't say that conversations have to happen
>> there. It just says:
>> 
>>   *  Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
>> 
>> In our draft of the rfc-interest list description, we didn't want
>> to label policy discussions as off topic because they could happen
>> there in the course of RSAB community calls for comment.
>> 
>> RFC 9280 could be updated to be more explicit about where comments
>> are sent.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Instead, if the RSAB needs to call for comments and have a
>>>>> community discussion, let it be on the RSWG list.   An
>>>>> announcement on rfc-interest seems fine (presumably along with
>>>>> announcements, if appropriate, on ietf-announce and/or the main
>>>>> ietf@ list.  If for some reason the RSWG list is not
>>>>> appropriate, ietf@ would probably be a better venue for
>>>>> discussion than using rfc-interest and probably causing it to
>>>>> lose focus.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sure the RSAB will be issuing calls for comment to both
>>>> rfc-interest and the RSWG list.
>> 
>> [JM] For draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-10's community call for
>> comments, RSAB sent the announcement to ietf-announce, and CCed
>> rfc-interest, irtf-announce, iab, and rswg mailing lists.
> 
> The community call for comments was announced on all these lists
> but that doesn't mean there was supposed to be any discussion on
> those lists. The call requested feedback to be send to rsab@ and
> respectively had the response address set  in the mail. This is
> what the call said:
> 
>> Following RFC 9280, the RSAB solicits final comments from a wide
>> range  of communities. Please send substantive comments to the 
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by
>> 2024-07-08. Please retain the  beginning of the Subject line to
>> allow automated sorting.
> 
> So in summary, all policy discussion should be on RSWG and sending
> these announcement to rfc-interest@, should not change that.
 
Mirja,

Then we are in complete agreement and the only problem is that thee
rewritten description may need a bit of tightening/ clarification
because it appears (at least to me) to imply that discussions of RSAB
policy proposals will be conducted on rfc-interest.

thanks, 
   john