On 17-Feb-25 11:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025, at 06:01, Russ Housley wrote:
Since the agreement is to produce a complete replacement for RFC 9280
at the end of the discussion of updates, the document, if adopted, will
become draft-rswg-rfc9280bis.
I raised the question of what the scope of the RFC 9280 updates might be.
It's possible that we could say "anything goes", but I'd prefer if we have a tighter scope.
To be honest, while I agree that the scope should be limited to refinements and fixes for
observed shortcomings, I'm not sure that we can really define the scope in detail in
advance. If something new is proposed, I'd want to test it against "refinements and
fixes".
So here's my short list of things that might be in scope. These are from Paul
& Alexis' draft.
1. Updates based on RFC 9720 publication
a. allow reissuance of RFCs (without "substantive" change)
b. add desire to maintain series consistency
c. rely on citation of 9720 rather than reproducing all of it
2. More clearly allow the details of how policies are implemented to be
developed outside of RSWG process (i.e., setting editorial policy, defining
rfcxml formats, setting guidelines for documents, maintaining tools for
developing documents)
3. Define appeals path for decisions made in setting of detailed policy or its
implication (e.g., disputes over interpretation for specific documents)
I agree that all those are refinements or fixes.
4. Define "consumers" for RFCs as stakeholders and assign the RPC a role in
representing their interests
(I'm personally unsure about this last one, but I'll hold off on articulating
why for now.)
The new bit here is not the notion of consulting consumers, which is in section 3.2.1 of
RFC 9280, but of assigning a role to the RPC. At the moment we have given the duty of
consulting them to "RSAB members" directly. Is the RSAB telling us that
doesn't work and needs fixing?
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
