Hi Alexis,
On 31-Jan-25 13:40, Alexis Rossi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:54 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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
The outcome of the last RSAB call for comments was that we returned the doc to
RSWG along with the relevant community comments that prompted us to return it.
[1]
If we had sent that email to both rswg AND rfc-i, would that solve the problem?
Not really. This model still doesn't enable direct discussion between the
people making last call comments and the people who produced the document,
without the RSAB acting as a filter. That's the distinguishing characteristic
of the IETF model compared to the model that the RSAB adopted.
I'm willing to be told I'm in the rough on this. It just isn't quite what I
expected.
Brian
In other words, rfc-i would have been notified as well that the document was
returned to RSWG for discussion, and they could choose to see the comments that
caused it to be returned. At that point, anyone interested who is not already
in rswg could then go participate in any ensuing discussion on the wg list.
(maybe I'm at a disadvantage in this convo because I am not steeped in the IETF
last call model)
Alexis
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rsab/F4CcZJEg2itjrxiACdpiyW-NAco/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rsab/F4CcZJEg2itjrxiACdpiyW-NAco/>
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
