[TLS] Re: FATT process update

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:00 AM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> The process/description is getting better thanks.
>

Yes, agree.


>
> Using the term liaison will confuse people so be
> better to change that.
>

Yep, it's correct English/French, but it has an IETF meaning that is more
specialized. But, see below about this issue and others.


>
> I still dislike encouraging private discussion of
> drafts - that's not really in the spirit of the
> IETF at all.
>

I think it is OK to do this. We could compare it to the way we keep IESG
minutes. These people are busy in a similar way, and they need a somewhat
private process in order to respect their time.

I think the current document is way too long. What we can do is make it a
regular IETF design team. I think we did need this detail to figure out
what we are doing, but all the extensive explanations are not necessary for
the final output. I'm not going to do a PR to delete them, because it
doesn't feel good to do a PR that just deletes other people's work. But I
would encourage the authors to pick up a red pen with an aim for many
deletions.

The edit I will suggest is this, to start:

"The FATT panel is similar to a design team as defined in Section 6.5 in
RFC 2418".

I would say that should go. If we start with

""The FATT panel is a design team as defined in Section 6.5 in RFC 2418".

Then, a lot of the process details can also go, since I doubt they will be
followed anyway. Not because what's there now is wrong, but because they
will just do their own thing.

We can once again refer to:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/

Here, we're interested in the last phrase:

"* any design team that lasts for more than a few months should make
regular public reports on what they are doing."

thanks,
Rob