See below. > On 24. Jan 2025, at 20:43, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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.
The RSAB list has a public archive. So effectively we didn’t provide any instruction to provide any private comments (but RFC9280 doesn’t say anything about this). However, if a more public way is desired we can do something different. Mirja > > > Brian > > -- > RSAB mailing list -- r...@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rsab-le...@rfc-editor.org -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
