On May 1, 2025, at 13:53, Jean Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks for finding these! > 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 (I note that the IAB Members appendix is out of date, presumably that was 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. It might be cleaner just to remove the section. It doesn't relate to who wrote or even reviewed the document: it says that there were members of the IAB when the document was in the IAB stream. > 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... Agree. > 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. Agree that this document updates 8729. > Question: Does this I-D now define RFC Editor Version 3 or will we rev the > version number? The WG discussed this earlier, and decided to stay with version 3 instead of making it 4 or 3.1. > The version number is missing from the title. Fixed > Section 1: Documents should only be obsoleted by one RFC, and RFC 9280 > obsoleted RFC 8728. Agree. > 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 can be simply changed to "This document defines version...". > 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]. It might be clearer to say: {{RFC9280}} was the result of discussion within the Program and described version 3 of the RFC Editor Model while remaining consistent with {{RFC8729}}. As stated earlier, this document obsoletes {{RFC9280}}. > 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. Fixed. > > 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.) Yes. > > Section 9.7: Here, it could just say "specifies": > > This document creates the Editorial Stream... Agree. > 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... Agree. > > 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. Yep. > > Section 6.2. > > The IAB would prefer ... > > Perhaps: > > It is preferred that... Yep. Thanks for the in-depth review. Future readers will benefit from the reduction in confusion. --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
