Hi all,
I also support the document, but there are issues with the text imported
from RFC 9280 that should be fixed: In several places, it's unclear
which document "this document" refers to, and there are also
forward-looking statements from RFC 9280 that need to be updated. In
addition, the sentences that talk about updating RFCs 7841, 8729, and
8730 and obsoleting RFC 8728 need to be reviewed.
Please see below --
On 4/30/25 7:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 30, 2025, at 17:13, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm happy with the document. Thanks to the editors for doing the leg work here.
(I note that the IAB Members appendix is out of date, presumably that was
deliberately left untouched, I would have preferred an explicit TODO rather
than have it remain misleading.)
Yipes, good catch. I propose:
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
---->
IAB Members at the Time of Approval of RFC 9280
Internet Architecture Board members at the time that RFC 9280 was
approved for publication were:
[JM] Note that the "IAB Members at the Time of Approval" section
signifies that a document is IAB Stream and has IAB consensus, but this
doc is Editorial Stream. This section may be confusing to some readers.
This paragraph, which is after the IAB member list, applies to RFC 9280,
so perhaps it should say "RFC 9280 was a product...":
This document is the product of the IAB's RFC Editor Future
Development Program. The RFC Editor Future Development Program
allowed for open participation and used a rough consensus model for
decision making.
I found other instances where the phrase "this document" actually meant
RFC 9280 rather than this draft:
Section 1.
This document adds a fifth stream, the Editorial Stream...
Because RFC 9280 created the fifth stream, perhaps:
This document specifies the Editorial Stream...
RFC 9280 updated RFC 8729, so maybe the following should be tweaked or
perhaps this document should also update RFC 8729:
The overall framework for the RFC Series and the RFC Editor function
is described in [RFC8729] and is updated by this document, which
defines version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.
Question: Does this I-D now define RFC Editor Version 3 or will we rev
the version number? The version number is missing from the title.
Section 1: Documents should only be obsoleted by one RFC, and RFC 9280
obsoleted RFC 8728. The Obsoletes and Updates relationships should be
clarified in this paragraph:
This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC
Editor Model. This document updates [RFC7841] by defining
boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates
[RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and
RSCE. This document updates [RFC8730] ...
Section 9. RFC 9280 was the result of the IAB program:
This document is the result of discussion within the Program and
describes version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining
consistent with [RFC8729].
Section 9 has several statements that refer to actions that RFC 9280 took:
Section 9.5:
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE have proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, this document
dispenses with the RSOC. References to the RSOC in documents such as
[RFC8730] are obsolete because this document disbands the RSOC.
Perhaps:
In practice, the relationships and lines of authority and
responsibility between the IAB, RSOC, and RSE proved unwieldy
and somewhat opaque. To overcome some of these issues, RFC 9280
dispensed with the RSOC and made references to the RSOC in documents
such as [RFC8730] obsolete.
Section 9.6:
... this document affirms that the RSAG has been disbanded. (The
RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),
which this document establishes.)
Perhaps:
... RFC 9280 affirmed that the RSAG was disbanded. (The
RSAG is not to be confused with the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB),
which was established by RFC 9280.)
Section 9.7: Here, it could just say "specifies":
This document creates the Editorial Stream...
While there are some requests made by RFC 9280 that can be considered
ongoing ("The IETF LLC is requested to provide necessary tooling"),
there are some requests that have already been granted:
Section 3.1.1.4
The IAB is requested to convene the RSWG when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
Editor Model.
Section 3.1.2.6
The IAB is requested to convene the RSAB when it is first formed in
order to formalize the IAB's transfer of authority over the RFC
Editor Model.
Perhaps for both statements:
The IAB convened the ... in 2022...
Section 6.1. Procedures Request of the IETF Trust
The IAB requests that the IETF Trust and its Trustees assist in
meeting the goals and procedures set forth in this document.
The Trustees are requested to publicly confirm their willingness and
ability to accept responsibility for the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for the Editorial Stream.
Specifically, the Trustees are asked...
Perhaps put the above paragraph in past tense.
Section 6.2.
The IAB would prefer ...
Perhaps:
It is preferred that...
Best regards,
Jean
(Apologies in advance for any delayed replies. I'll be back online May 12)
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
