Hi all,
Getting back to this --
On 1/30/25 2:46 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
Hi Jean,
RFC9280 explicitly mentions the rfc-interest@ list to send the community
call there:
> The RSAB seeks such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the
rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org)
email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent.
Also I didn’t hear anybody saying that we should not send the call there, but
there was a concern to have any policy-related discussion there.
So, I think we still want to sent the call to rfc-interest@.
[JM] Yes, notices for community calls should be sent to rfc-interest per
RFC 9280. Here is an updated ML description that says that could happen
(but doesn't pin down where those discussions will take place):
A general discussion list about the RFC Series and its operational
processes.
The rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list is meant be a focal
point for information and discussion about the RFC Series and related
practices. For example, topics appropriate to this list may include
aspects related to RFC style, formatting, and tools.
Please note that collaboration on new RFC Series policies should
happen on the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) mailing list
(rswg@rfc-editor.org) [RFC9280]. The RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB)
will send notices of community calls for comments on proposals that
have gained consensus within the RSWG to the rfc-interest list.
Topics that are out of scope will be redirected as needed.
This list is owned by the RFC Production Center. To contact the list
owners, use the following email address: rfc-interest-owner@rfc-
editor.org
I think this captures the feedback. If it's decided later that community
comments will be discussed on rfc-interest, then we can update this
description.
Thanks!
Jean
Mirja
On 29. Jan 2025, at 23:23, Jean Mahoney <jmaho...@staff.rfc-
editor.org> wrote:
Hi all,
On 1/28/25 4:33 PM, 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.
[JM] If we agree that rfc-interest _won't_ be the default list for
RSAB's calls for comments, then I could update the list description:
Current:
A general discussion list about the RFC Series and its operational
processes.
The rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list is meant be a focal
point for information and discussion about the RFC Series and related
practices. For example, topics appropriate to this list may include
aspects related to RFC style, formatting, and tools.
Please note that collaboration on new RFC Series policies should
happen on the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) mailing list
(rswg@rfc-editor.org). The RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB) may
initiate and manage community calls for comments on proposals that
have gained consensus within the RSWG on the rfc-interest@rfc-
editor.org list [RFC9280]. Topics that are out of scope will be
redirected as needed.
To contact the list owners, use the following email address:
rfc-interest-ow...@rfc-editor.org
Perhaps (removed mention of calls for comment in the 3rd paragraph,
added owner info in the 4th paragraph):
A general discussion list about the RFC Series and its operational
processes.
The rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list is meant be a focal
point for information and discussion about the RFC Series and related
practices. For example, topics appropriate to this list may include
aspects related to RFC style, formatting, and tools.
Please note that collaboration on new RFC Series policies should
happen on the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) mailing list
(rswg@rfc-editor.org) [RFC9280]. Topics that are out of scope will
be redirected as needed.
This list is owned by the RFC Production Center. To contact the list
owners, use the following email address: rfc-interest-owner@rfc-
editor.org
Thanks!
Jean
Alexis
--
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
