John > On 25 Jan 2025, at 08:27, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > But, Jean, if they "could" happen there, it means that anyone in the > community who wants to follow such a discussion would need to be > subscribed to both the RSWG and rfc-interest lists. That is the > requirement, however implicit, that I think is undesirable.
Apologies in advance if I am misrepresenting you, but it appears as if you are looking at this solely from the perspective of an IETF participant who, quite understandably, wants to make that participation as efficient as possible. However, it is an indisputable fact that many, if not the majority of RFC consumers are not IETF participants and so we need to consider how those people provide their feedback. I assert, and I believe I am not alone in this, that it is almost hostile to expect those people to join the RSWG list, where the majority of the discussion is between subject matter experts about the minutiae of RFC production, and only very rarely at the level where a non-IETF participant can easily engage. Doing so would almost guarantee that they did not engage and so the only way to engage those people is in a forum that is free of that minutiae and that unavoidably means two separate discussions. Jay > IMO, you > don't need to label discussions off-topic or even modify RFC 9280. > All it takes is encouraging the RSAB to make it clear in any > announcement where a discussion should occur (or, if I read Mirja's > note in a way I assume she didn't intend, that comments be sent to > the RSAB with no encouragement of community discussion at all). If > that is being done already --as her note implies-- then there is > probably no need to create more rules. However I still think that > clarifying the draft to indicate that rfc-interest is a good > destination for RSAB announcements but, at least under normal > circumstances, not for discussion. > > What I'm trying to avoid is accidentally having parallel discussions > on different lists that therefore are not visible to all of those > interested in whatever topic is being discussed. > >> RFC 9280 could be updated to be more explicit about where comments >> are sent. > > Sure, although I doubt that spelling things out at that level of > detail is worth the trouble unless the RPC is going to take the > position that, unless such a change is made, policy discussions can > and should take place on the rfc-interest regardless of wherever else > the are occurring. > >>>>> 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. > > Again, I have no problem with announcements at all. And, while > listing where announcements should be sent (presumably with "at > least") should be harmless, I don't think specifically spelling that > out is necessary. My concern is about the locus of discussions and > that we not get ourselves into a situation where there is an > expectation of parallel ones. > > best, > john -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-direc...@ietf.org
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
