Hi,
> On Jan 29, 2025, at 5:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexis,
>
> Below...
>
> On 29-Jan-25 11:33, Alexis Rossi wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > [JM] For people who would like to provide comments but who are
>> > non-participants, maybe we could provide them a web form. This would
>> > spare them from needing to subscribe to a mailing list, but they
>> > wouldn't see anything more than an automatic response ("Thank you for
>> > your comments!") unless someone mailed them directly. (Let's not design
>> > this interface in this thread, though. It's just a thought.)
>> >
>> > As for community participants, I'm not sure if the mailing list venue
>> > (rswg, rfc-interest, or rsab) would make much of a difference when it
>> > comes to their willingness to provide comments.
>> That's true (and that's an experimental result from IETF experience).
>> But my concern is more that if a member of the wider community replies
>> only to the RSAB, their reply will not be automatically seen by the rest
>> of the community (including the RSWG, the presumed creator of the
>> document).
>> IMHO that is not what RFC 9280 intended by "public comments".
>> Brian
>> What if we tried something sort of in between?
>> In the initial call for comments, have the email to rfc-i & rswg explicitly
>> remind people that there is a public archive for the RSAB list if they want
>> to follow along. Before the comment period closes, we send a reminder email
>> about the comments closing and that people can see comments and discussion
>> in the public archive. (We can remind again when we send out decision
>> emails, but that's post-comments period.)
>> Hopefully that would point interested people to the comments/discussion,
>> without having potentially extraneous emails to rfc-i.
>
> The problem is that it *isn't* a discussion, if the emails don't
> automatically arrive in interested parties' inboxes, as they do for IETF last
> calls.
>
> So if it's not to be rfc-interest (which is really a policy decision for the
> RPC to take), I think the RSAB should automatically include the RSWG list in
> last call discussions. Passive "inclusion" as was done for RFC 9720 doesn't
> really work, IMHO.
I agree. I would be a lot simpler and more transparent if there was just one
list.
Bob
>
> Brian
>
> Brian
> --
> rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
