Jay,
--On Saturday, January 25, 2025 11:50 +1300 Jay Daley <exec-direc...@ietf.org> wrote: > 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. No, although reading my prior comments, I can see how you might make that inference. I am at least as concerned about that non-IETF audience as your note suggests you are and have said so, consistently, for many years. > 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. Ok, perfectly reasonable. Even as a moderately active IETF participant, I have found what feels to me like the S/N ratio on the RSWG list daunting, especially (as is often the case as you point out) when the discussions there involves long threads focused on minutiae, both of RFC production and other topics, and, especially from the perspective on a non-IETF participant, a horrible S/N ratio. So, good reason to not use the RSWG list if we cannot keep it focused on policy and strategic issues... and we don't seem to be able to do that. The only thing that can be said for the RSWG list in that context is that it is _supposed_ to be focused on policy and that is what has driven my thinking in my notes on this subject. However, if we look at rfc-interest through the same lens (as I have obviously been doing), most of the traffic there in a given month is about RFC design and production details (as has been a large part of the intent for decades), with very little about policy. So I think it would be reasonable to substantially repeat your assertion about hostility to RFC consumers above with "rfc-interest" substituted for "RSWG". I hope the answer is not that we need an "rfc-policy" list, but maybe that is where the combination of your reasoning about the RSWG list and mine about the rfc-interest one takes us. john -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
