On Wed, 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.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
Oh I see, maybe we have different ideas about what "discussion" means in
this context?
I meant that people can use the archive of the list to see the discussion
amongst RSAB members about whether a comment constitutes a reason to return
the document to RSWG (rather than approve it). These are yes/no decisions.
So we're considering stuff like, "was this topic already discussed and
consensus reached within RSWG?" or "is this comment just small editorial
things that can be considered in the publishing process?", etc. We might
talk to the commenter to clarify something they said, but we do not change
the policy or recommend to RSWG how they should change it - we only decide
whether to return the doc to RSWG with relevant community comments.
Any resulting conversation about changing the actual policy should happen
within RSWG. RSAB should not be an end run around participating in the
working group.
Alexis
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
