Brian, On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 5:28 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Ah, okay, I think I understand your perspective now. 9280 doesn't specify where community comments need to be sent to. Some relevant pull quotes starting at [1]: "...RSAB shall issue a community call for comments as further described in Section 3.2.3. If substantial comments are received in response to the community call for comments, the RSAB may return the proposal to the RSWG to consider those comments and make revisions to address the feedback received." "...The RSAB is responsible for initiating and managing community calls for comments..." "...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..." RSAB's interpretation of this (including that we should initiate and manage the calls) was that comments should come to the RSAB list and then be returned to RSWG if they seemed like issues that needed to be addressed. And I believe you are saying you don't want that potential filtering of comments to occur and that you would prefer they go to RSWG directly. Community comments could be sent directly to RSWG - there's nothing in 9280 that prevents that. Do others in the working group think that would be helpful? Or harmful? Alexis [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280.html#section-3.2.2-2.6 > > 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
