[Rswg] Re: Scope of updates in draft-rswg-rfc9280bis

[Eliot Lear]

I'm saying we didn't the last time, and the reason we didn't say anything the last time was that we couldn't agree on what it meant to say something.  And usually the conversation would devolve from the statement, “People expect [xyz] out of the series”, with the response being roughly, “Oh yeah?”

Eliot

On 20.02.2025 20:41, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

That being said, I have no objection to the RPC collecting information on*readership* such as usability and readability surveys.  They need to report their data to the right forum, tho.  And I think they have that capability today. So the text that's in the draft is okay, but going further to say, “The RPC speaks for the reader” would be, I think asking for an endless debate as to what the implications would be.

Eliot,



FWIW I think we should include it.

Regards
   Brian
On 20-Feb-25 20:12, Eliot Lear wrote:

I'm actually a bit confused. You seem to be saying that we don't have consensus on section 3.2 "RFC Consumers" in the draft so we shouldn't include it. Where's the discussion showing that we don't have consensus? (I don't mean the fine details, where I'm sure some refinement is needed, but on the section as a whole.)

Hi Brian

On 20.02.2025 03:22, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

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.

Why?  What work is blocked because of that?

Eliot

OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org