Eliot,
A question below:
On 19-Feb-25 19:38, Eliot Lear wrote:
Martin,
to simplify things and get them moving again, I propose the following:
On 16.02.2025 23:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
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
In scope.
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)
In scope.
3. Define appeals path for decisions made in setting of detailed policy or its
implication (e.g., disputes over interpretation for specific documents)
In scope.
4. Define "consumers" for RFCs as stakeholders and assign the RPC a role in
representing their interests
NOT in scope (this time around).
What do you mean by "this time around"? You mean the next version of this
draft, or something longer term?
I think Jay has already implied that the scanty mention of consumers in 9280 is
a loose end, and I wouldn't want 9280bis to leave the RPC unsure of what to do
about the loose end.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
