--On Friday, January 24, 2025 17:24 +0100 "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Hi John, > > Please see one more note below. > >> On 24. Jan 2025, at 16:25, Jean Mahoney >> <jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On 1/23/25 10:26 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >>> --On Friday, January 24, 2025 16:41 +1300 Jay Daley >>> <exec-direc...@ietf.org> wrote: >>>> Hi John >>>> >>>>> On 24 Jan 2025, at 15:41, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> >>>>> 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 >> rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org) >> 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 >> r...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:r...@rfc-editor.org> 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 -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
