On 06-Feb-25 02:58, Eliot Lear wrote:
So...
I like the idea of collecting issues, and making updates. I am wondering about
the timing of all of this. I don't think we want some form of lazy evaluation,
but on the other hand, we don't want to be constantly revving the process. Is
this gating any work?
Yes. This draft, among other things, clarifies the actual boundary between
policy (RSWG/RSAB responsibility) and technical details (RPC responsibility),
and fuzziness about that boundary has been holding up technical decisions for
almost 2 years.
I agree with Mirja - this isn't v4 of the RFC Editor model; it's v3 clarified. I'm
agnostic whether we should obsolete and replace RFC 9280, or simply patch it (i.e.,
"update"). If the document editors can make the patching easier to read, that
would help.
I'd like to see this draft proceed very quickly, because I think it will
release the RPC to get on with those technical decisions.
Brian
Eliot
On 05.02.2025 12:19, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
I really don’t think we should call this v4. For me we would need a v4 if we
figure that v3 failed and we want something new. What I see proposed are
clarification to the v3 model but not changes. If we start working on a
9280bis, I’m against adoption. Let’s stop the meta discussions and actually
start working and executing the v3 model!
On 5. Feb 2025, at 01:58, George Michaelson<g...@algebras.org> wrote:
I made an observation to Paul that this document cannot be read by itself, it
reads as a patch-set to the existing 9280.
It's a fine body of work. But, the outcome (in my opinion) should not be this document
becomes "v4" but that this document is the working space to produce a v4 which
should be capable of being read by itself, and which clearly supersedes 9280.
(insert drawing of George behind a lemonade stand with a sign saying "convince me I
am wrong")
cheers
-George
--
rswg mailing list --rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email torswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
