Re: [RTG-DIR] [Rfced-future] RTG-DIR Last Call review of draft-rsalz-2028bis-05

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sasha,

On 28.02.22 16:00, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this 
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or 
> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG 
> review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is 
> to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about 
> the Routing Directorate, please see 
> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, 
> it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other 
> IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them 
> through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-rsalz-2028bis-05
> Reviewer: Alexander (|”Sasha”) Vainshtein
> Review Date: 28-Feb-22
> IETF LC End Date: 07-Mar-22
> Intended Status: Nest Current Practice
>
> *Summary:*
>
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be 
> resolved before publication.
>
> *Comments**:*
>
> The draft describes entities involved in the IETF standards process. 
> It is easy to read.
>
> To the best of my understanding its purpose is alignment with the 
> current structure of the Internet Society and its affiliated 
> organizations (IETF, IANA, RFC Production center (nee RFC Editor) 
> etc.  The previous document describing these entities has been 
> published as RFC 2028 in 1996.
>
> The author of the draft and I have exchanged a few emails regarding my 
> concerns. We did not reach the agreement, but in any case I would like 
> to than the author for responsiveness and cooperation.
>
> *Major Issues*: None found
>
> *Minor Issues*:
>
> These days it is quite common in the IETF process to differentiate 
> between document Authors and Contributors, especially when  many 
> persons have been actively involved with development of the technical 
> aspects of the document.  The number of Authors is usually limited to 
> no more than 5, and their names appear on the title page of the 
> document, while Contributors (if any) are only listed in a dedicated 
> section within the document.
>
> At the same time the Contributors have a well-defined role in the 
> process, e.g. they must report about any non-disclosed IPR related to 
> the document (or lack of any such IPR) both during adoption of the 
> document as a WG document and also during the WG Last Call.
>
> The draft mentioned Editors and Authors of the document (and explains 
> that these terms are interchangeable), but it does not mention 
> Contributors at all.
>
> I have raised this issue with the author of the draft, and IMHO we 
> have “agreed to disagree” on this point.
>

I think you are talking about Section 3.2.1, which in part reads:

>     This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation.  RSAB
>     members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
>     authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
>     ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval
>     of a proposal, there should be no surprises.

I don't think you should worry about whether contributors are listed at 
this time.  The IESG in particular tends to cast a wide net on such 
consultations.  But if Lars thinks that won't be the case here, we 
should consider adding the word “contributors” above, as I don't think 
it hurts anyone to do so.

Eliot