Hi Alexis, Thanks for this well written draft. I think many points discussed in your document were actually intended like this in RFC9280, but spelling them out more explicitly, especially with the operational experience we have right now, seems useful to me.
I would actually recommend to merge Paul’s doc into this doc, given it's already in a very good shape. Mirja P.S.: I changes the subject line because I really hope we can move on instead of having meta discussions about what we should do or not do. I urgent the chairs to become more active in acquiring work item and holding meetings focused on discussion of problems and proposed solutions rather than just process. I think we still need more experience in executing this model and I think it needs stronger steering by the chairs. > On 22. Jan 2025, at 04:00, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 22-Jan-25 13:07, Alexis Rossi wrote: >> 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/ > > Yes. If you and Paul could converge your efforts, that would be excellent > IMHO. > > Brian > >> 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 -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
