On 11-Mar-25 12:57, Salz, Rich wrote:
I think 9280 can be simplified by saying it follows 2026/2418 process, except
that RSAB is the IESG, RSWG is the working group, etc. Am I wrong?
Not speaking as a co-author on the draft: I cannot imagine that "RSAB is the
IESG" would cause anything short of a firestorm, and is thus not a simplification.
I will re-read the draft more carefully, but isn’t the RSAB performing the same
tasks in this stream that the IESG does for the IETF stream?
I think it's a bit closer to a blend of IAB and IESG functions (after all, the
IAB used to take the standards track actions, before 1992...). But I think the
analogy to 2026/2418 is not a good path to take; it comes with a lot of
baggage. And as I pointed out a couple of days ago, RFC 2026 itself doesn't
specify how the Last Call debate takes place.
In case you didn't see what I wrote:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/VWqSvVXKcwy9lrT5XnCuxQH8GDk/
So my conclusion is: change nothing, trust the RSAB.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
