Hi Brian, Please see below.
> On 26. Jan 2025, at 22:26, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 25-Jan-25 22:52, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: >> 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. > > (I'm not sure that the IETF intends to encourage private comments with that > "exceptionally".) > > I didn't know that the RSAB archive was public, but that's good. However, > with an IETF last call, since I'm subscribed to the last-call list I see any > discussion in my inbox. I have no idea whether there was any discussion > before RFC 9720 was approved. Speaking personally, the chances that I'd think > to check the RSAB archive unless prompted to do so are very, very low. There was some discussion that was publicly visible based on the feedback provided by Carsten, as he cc’ed both rswg@ and rfc-interest@ in his reply and we kept those cc in place. For other feedback that the RSAB considered as “substantial” we provided the link to the RSAB archive in the mail sent back to the RSWG chair with the RSWG list in cc. We received one more piece of feedback that we didn’t consider to raise a substantial comments regarding this specific draft and we recommended that person to reach out to the RSWG chair or group directly instead. You can look that part up in the RSAB achieves if you want. However, I don’t think RFC9280 actually considers discussion directly based on the feedback. Our understanding was that the RSAB collects the feedback, makes an assessment if the comments are substantial and need to be addressed before approval and then sends this feedback back to the RSWG where then potentially more discussion can take place. This is what RFC9280 says: > The RSAB is responsible for considering comments received during a community > call for comments. If > RSAB members conclude that such comments raise important issues that need to > be addressed, they > should do so by discussing those issues within the RSWG or (if the issues > meet the criteria specified in > Step 9 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280.html#step9> of Section 3.2.2 > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280.html#workflow>) lodging a position of > CONCERN during RSAB balloting. > > So my opinion is that there should be a subscribable list involved, and it > shouldn't be the RSWG list. Unless we want yet another list, I think RSAB > last calls should use rfc-interest. As I said above and I think inline with RFC9280 I actually think that any discussion on the draft produced by the RSWG should happen on the RSWG list. If a person provides feedback who is not subscripted to the RSWG, you can always cc that person directly in further input is needed. Also if you are interested in discussions on RSWG draft, I think it is actually fair to require that you subscribe to RSWG. For my understanding people on rfc-interest@ are often interested in much more participial matters. Announcing a new policy draft there before final approval seems fine to reach the broader RFC community but more than this would potentially rather put some people of. As a side note, I believe we did discuss to also use last-call@ as discussion list, however, that seems to focus only on the IETF community. However, if the IETF community would prefer that we could consider cc’ing that list as well. Mirja > > Regards > Brian > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
