Yet one more note at the end:
On 25-Jan-25 07:01, John C Klensin wrote:
--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.
Agreed. But as for IETF last calls, I thought we required last
call comments to be public? Section 3.2.3 of RFC 9280 says:
A notice of a community call for comments contains the following:
...
* Clear instructions on how to provide public comments
Note the word "public". It looks to me as if the RSAB overlooked
that in the last call for draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates. To fix it,
they would need to include either rfc-interest or rswg in last
call messages, just as the IETF includes last-c...@ietf.org:
Please send substantive comments to the
last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to i...@ietf.org instead.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
