Mirja,
On 30-Jan-25 21:41, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
Hi Brian, hi all,
I have to say I actually like the model we used last time, which is basically
that the RSAB collects all input and then provides it to RSWG after the call
ended, which then can discuss everything that might need discussion. It’s
different than the IETF last call model but that doesn’t mean it's bad.
I respectfully disagree. I think that approach inhibits direct discussion
between the people who raise issues and the RSWG.
Brian
Mirja
On 30. Jan 2025, at 02:02, 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
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
