We use the term stream representative for the RSAB in RFC9280. We purposefully did not use stream manager: in my memory this was in order to give each stream the ability to have a separate stream manager and stream representative on the RSAB, and that would be an stream specific decision. However, not sure that is really useful after all.
> On 23. Apr 2026, at 07:56, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Oh. The problem is that the term is still in use, without definition. (I > think I only have one instance in my draft, which I can remove next time > around, but "stream approving body" is a clumsy thing to use as a noun.) > > Regards/Ngā mihi > Brian > > On 23-Apr-26 17:23, Eliot Lear wrote: >> We debated this when we did 9280 and decided to do away with the term >> because it takes us down a rabbit hole of who manages a stream. The term we >> used was "stream approving body". I don't see value in revisiting that >> discussion but I do see value in having an issue tracker for 9920bis, which >> I hope won't be produced for a year or three. >> Eliot >> On 23.04.2026 07:12, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> I noticed today that when RFC 9280 obsoleted RFC 8728, it accidentally (I >>> suppose) removed all mention of stream managers. They are not, I believe, >>> defined in any currently valid RFC. >>> >>> Do we care and should we fix it? >>> >>> Regards/Ngā mihi >>> Brian Carpenter > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
