As coincidence would have it, I had also been working on a draft. My specific text changes to 9280 are TBD (they're a bunch of notes in a doc) but I think the rest of it could be a helpful addition to the conversation.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rossi-rpcresponsibilities/ Alexis On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:11 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 18-Jan-25 05:08, Russ Housley wrote: > > Brian: > > > > I like the direction you are going, but we have seen that rfc-interest is > > not a good place to get technical feedback on proposed changes to the XML > > schema and SVG profile. I think we need to figure that out too. > > Certainly; for example, would it work to integrate it with tools-discuss? > However, I think that by clearly moving the responsibility to the RPC, which > itself is responsible to the LLC, we make it a soluble problem. > > Brian > > > > > Russ > > > > > >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter > >> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This unresolved thread has been nagging at me for many weeks. I would like > >> to make a concrete proposal for a clarifying addition to section 3 of RFC > >> 9280: > >> > >> Existing text: > >> > >> "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." > >> > >> Proposed addition: > >> > >> "Such policies will not include detailed technical specifications, for > >> example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar. Such > >> matters will be decided and documented by the RPC along with its other > >> working practices, as discussed in section 4.2 of [RFC9280], with > >> community consultation as for other tools and services supported by IETF > >> LLC [RFC8711]." > >> > >> I believe this would clarify the scope of the RSWG and allow the RPC to > >> make progress on various technical issues that are currently in limbo. > >> > >> (At the same time we could also enact erratum #7795.) > >> > >> This could make a very short RFC updating RFC 9280] > >> Regards > >> Brian Carpenter > >> > >> On 21-Nov-24 14:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> On 21-Nov-24 12:58, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >>>> On 20. Nov 2024, at 23:37, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I wonder: did we make a mistake in our approach, and how should we > >>>>> measure the work of this group > >>>> > >>>> Some of us would like to get technical work done, and we understood the > >>>> procedural work needed to get out of the way. > >>>> > >>>> We are still waiting. > >>>> > >>> To me the mistake is obvious - we failed to define what was "policy" > >>> under the control of the RSWG and RSAB, and what was operational under > >>> the control of the LLC. This has effectively sent the RSWG into permanent > >>> bikeshedding loops. There's no criticism of the chairs intended; it was > >>> set up that way. > >>> I think the answer to that is clear, mainly as indicated in > >>> draft-rossi-rfcpubformats. The RSWG should never discuss technical > >>> details; a group convened by the LLC should do that (assuming the LLC > >>> wants to keep it separate from the existing Tools Team). If we need to > >>> tweak RFC 9280 to get that done, let's do so ASAP. > >>> Brian > >>> P.S. To some extent it hasn't hurt us unduly, because the bikeshed still > >>> keeps the bikes reasonably dry. However, there are major technical issues > >>> that haven't advanced at all; SVG and accessibility come to mind. > >> > >> -- > >> rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org > > > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
