From nobody Fri Aug 7 07:55:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2B33A0D3B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eC5JSMTX_YSj for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DD8E3A09D6 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id g14so2189749iom.0 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:55:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=dlQVi5TblqHMk100yNM75rUNfECNZoX61RfESs3tCtw=; b=rlavc59X4hqV/9Ae1AIehXCllnEWEnSwkYRdW2hk4RTO2YFRyNkVAkJkyXhirz+gKg ghmIuGh/p0ljwQaeVGjRPWp3ADRGG8sAv/N0HO+WD799KdP5Wk1ky1IOLMV6u3aKiDx8 fDS1mobjPUftRUstOuDsz3vkqbbhaJd/zxm6vt3mMkGaQQ1UfxY/aVeLIR4F73zZuiF9 IV7VxDN1G8qrwivkwm9e18L7TZsGVvVeLkTatpIZsJWm9Y1yN2V51y5n5sNRB58bCWkh mamd4YvHbOO4pEb6w9dFN43Uo6ZCnZfEvIrWDTnRtdxcZF6pZ1m98iGYM2d+ZP+Egftq 2bCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=dlQVi5TblqHMk100yNM75rUNfECNZoX61RfESs3tCtw=; b=dUCRitYnhSV2NS+KGsBTVWkS2IrUcn+Oys7ElKZguPNJt2OgD8en0gYQvYilSfHDzj HlgpYYqYNviCV/NRN73ITiW/JAJhE1d6zLtdIV2jY3PzDkPOozO4UT6K375VD39nRJd9 1gO7EA7BdIrg9CR7pBDy9BY8kW0dAXJ8ns3rZVs+UGvKtKijf0LzvJT9M2dEn2FI0NXZ dTkSfXgbvo0XmCgaFJr8uk24JbD61k22NL43qESUHK77w5idJJdHrTSPLYsOk4XhG3j8 l8X55wFgUXgsY7Rypk5p5oFC5+79gGwuDSAuL6DuL0wxsInxYDFWF6HPCBGETQPBq0RI JXfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532bjp5rzX1q+rxbskO4NShZ1a31NPErPHSvFjs0nhYm9KaTQ0Ee LHwvOH7MjhQduT9tUNDb+xBYgdFrizE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxuiH/qUEQwa/mMyqces2K1pjDu4F/2gyaszppqaWqOy/fEiDH+iVSIdZPx8nKvhLXpKxuMBw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9d11:: with SMTP id j17mr4945580ioj.140.1596812114448; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2sm6551064iln.1.2020.08.07.07.55.13 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rosen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_580A634A-168B-4CC8-94CE-4E7580A5DD1D" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:55:12 -0400 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Next Step - proposals? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:55:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_580A634A-168B-4CC8-94CE-4E7580A5DD1D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear colleagues, The chairs would like to thank you for participating in the IETF 108 = meeting of the RFC Editor Futures program. We learned quite a bit at = that meeting, not the least of which was that the group is not yet = prepared to choose a direction. Therefore, what we are thinking is that the next step should be for = people to develop fleshed out proposals. It would be good to have = several alternatives that explore the different philosophies that have = been expressed in the group. Each proposal should be very clear on a = few points: Overall motivation and philosophy What each proposed entity is responsible for What the relationship of each entity is to other entities=20 What accountability, selection, and transparency mechanisms are in play = for each entity The next step would be for us to discuss these proposals and see if we = can find some common ground. Our thinking is that we would appoint a = neutral editor to document that common ground, which could come from any = proposal. The timing for any interim to discuss these depends very much on having = proposals. There are some drafts already of course, and we hope we can = have more soon. Thoughts? Eliot and Brian= --Apple-Mail=_580A634A-168B-4CC8-94CE-4E7580A5DD1D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear = colleagues,

The = chairs would like to thank you for participating in the IETF 108 meeting = of the RFC Editor Futures program.  We learned quite a bit at that = meeting, not the least of which was that the group is not yet prepared = to choose a direction.

Therefore, what we are thinking is that the next step should = be for people to develop fleshed out proposals.  It would be good = to have several alternatives that explore the different philosophies = that have been expressed in the group.  Each proposal should be = very clear on a few points:

  • Overall motivation = and philosophy
  • What each proposed entity is = responsible for
  • What the relationship of each entity = is to other entities 
  • What accountability, = selection, and transparency mechanisms are in play for each = entity

The next step would be for us to discuss these proposals and = see if we can find some common ground.  Our thinking is that we = would appoint a neutral editor to document that common ground, which = could come from any proposal.

The timing for any interim to discuss = these depends very much on having proposals.  There are some drafts = already of course, and we hope we can have more soon.

Thoughts?

Eliot and = Brian
= --Apple-Mail=_580A634A-168B-4CC8-94CE-4E7580A5DD1D-- From nobody Sat Aug 8 14:27:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E673A0658 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3iXxdcjxmCV for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 14:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 834453A0645 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 14:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id bh1so2827823plb.12 for ; Sat, 08 Aug 2020 14:27:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index :content-language; bh=jB5vzAp6eG4duZ0rZNSyHxLv2z2JNvKrSzPs3yYKbA4=; b=KoKjRAFUf2IX4fvIxm6emP8BAPQi3ccWlGtMSDkmV4nEkBHkizZhHTGxL2jBPLHytT gHleXc5f3Vhgpnq61tHJDNVv600qLIyuTI1wk+Ob9zfCsVLpgcMiypUWqVRck3M+36Cx k6TZDA39NUFFL7vDS+pzOnf2Sr82vYctRqTVteuoX39C7GTzdyWtKmKNAexM4XQAB5rO NANuY0Sioe24phhGgBECVl6GBJuY658s+Qjp1L5njL9k3ecQ9m0dEoG98++ICgnPx0AH uP2HAid9u+eaqp4wySForD63QPbpxThqcBdLYBi3sVWRf87Mqh5H1z8TjETWCCe2pF/G T66Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=jB5vzAp6eG4duZ0rZNSyHxLv2z2JNvKrSzPs3yYKbA4=; b=CkHqM8v0MOUlI2U7Nnfw9FNSaWQeKlLF6pa8Hx+4IGMKCvW+P3qnvIC0aJyEunhVFQ S9vF0sdKfGJoN49SqaLs37xqIwZVlpfbVHgreLWfllgBc2pF4mjiij3MHj3dvI4Fsbm3 IoA4k2nKvTKnPORlWmtUM3colXEyyOuLCUSTXrdc2fnwi1/rV01GLoAQETVwkS+amqM0 qTwiVcmBiaIMboT4IDCGCxdaBtJDbEJEL5kBnA9yqzWBUfAZYf66qwsWto1Zc+BkcTWe 3/VKZSUuFVzB2mEDpy5guftV7Ga5L/CpmS9KYjNAhS//SyvDUmSstOGg7hlu7w9a47pb 2W/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533O1RCvD+kx6qqUIurMH9kcaVHCxXz/y+7uWmIE4zEoVQ9EXAau vSu/H6WrpOFxBR9SyC3lRcH+x7d8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxX7uuZoqkkJvjuhunX8S3nI0UdicDuySfyhCTRbuT2cQL5AXVQgM0cWQFNJgUl8uflEx6/lA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:884:: with SMTP id v4mr18295936pjc.27.1596922052512; Sat, 08 Aug 2020 14:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a10sm15873944pfk.26.2020.08.08.14.27.30 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Aug 2020 14:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Larry Masinter From: Larry Masinter X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" To: Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 14:27:30 -0700 Message-ID: <06a301d66dca$b9c07eb0$2d417c10$@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_06A4_01D66D90.0D61F4D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdZtyri4letYC7VqS8OKheKrmro94w== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:27:35 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_06A4_01D66D90.0D61F4D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international experts on technical language and the editors of other major standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us with a recommendation. > Indeed. W3C has https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/17 and https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/#unacceptablebehavior -- https://LarryMasinter.net ------=_NextPart_000_06A4_01D66D90.0D61F4D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 

> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult = international experts on technical language and the editors of other = major standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us with a = recommendation.

> 

 

Indeed. W3C = has https://github.com/w3c/idc= g/issues/17

 

and

https://w3c.gi= thub.io/PWETF/#unacceptablebehavior

 

 

--

https://LarryMasinter.net

 

------=_NextPart_000_06A4_01D66D90.0D61F4D0-- From nobody Sun Aug 9 19:44:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FBE3A1326 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=t/B3xJcR; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=dAUg+UbG Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id veJi8P41fgWI for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065E83A0E52 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F461685 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 22:43:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=qqsDK40ihc6XzKdOLiCzL7ZEz32bpPZ PpdF69TZaRlw=; b=t/B3xJcRPAWn4V/GexImMPw6xy+wydqU4jqOcR1KtxU6zBE hFUG1XifjMLDz3f6yBwTYUq/ZVC96CdTV2NC5Bh0FAEtzdqzRZgsmAGh6nHJ+Ur/ OVb4swUZv0mt83IQ94d1/GhMnGhQHEUhRxgz5iXrccV92h6mlh+9BqxZidKNZtv1 9B8MO88788/jEmC+TB4JTFudWRfg/BFlGOYAevz4NxewLesLxbukyOtGGMRtRGJP 6pbuAks56wrkD8sG4VqPUflPLi7/kgRtPbAVvhbCcj6qi2G+4uhSHF5rN4pHUont pA8yDWFRDKSKr9hVvrHxdods8m4VGEjAPl0S57w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=qqsDK4 0ihc6XzKdOLiCzL7ZEz32bpPZPpdF69TZaRlw=; b=dAUg+UbGDcreGzJfIJpmCW mg0+rYPrr9RvLhUV0eTgkOXCTHAgBQw99y1+VfDRt8J7zZj5dBU9YthE6IMo38CJ 6kQfmckfMJWJM7NZlafndrWj6H4rTsjMPdmKuUERa7dHBwySYn6N7WSlDsEpMvLC 6VfIKup/tj9QfQrUwt+cAzq6lxgl34LpY6EOOQyuDreG0TWi+63mc8jSDI3EvBE7 Hjrs/XWvTPd402NW2Wn0iiZuf58VOoDyCZrhraL7b+t8cEp4PvR9TC0ySl/7Buny C7TOd7kj72Q21bleeHhHnZkzBEFN1kwSbWUIM9Y0qX+fZtYG5J6L+d1ESD9Tj5kw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrkeejgdeivdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepleehhfdvveeuieegfeekie eigeeiveehuedthfeitddufeetvdejteevieegudelnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdr ohhrghdpihgrsgdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 22E38E00EA; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:43:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-143-g3d58b38-fm-20200806.002-g3d58b387 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <7d7a228a-5182-4afc-b804-1ab0c5250ac2@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:43:02 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Next Step - proposals? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 02:44:02 -0000 Hi Brian, I just updated and posted . I believe that the original did address your requirements already, but I've added a little bit more content and made a few corrections. Cheers, Martin On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, at 00:55, Brian Rosen wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The chairs would like to thank you for participating in the IETF 108 > meeting of the RFC Editor Futures program. We learned quite a bit at > that meeting, not the least of which was that the group is not yet > prepared to choose a direction. > > Therefore, what we are thinking is that the next step should be for > people to develop fleshed out proposals. It would be good to have > several alternatives that explore the different philosophies that have > been expressed in the group. Each proposal should be very clear on a > few points: > > * Overall motivation and philosophy > * What each proposed entity is responsible for > * What the relationship of each entity is to other entities > * What accountability, selection, and transparency mechanisms are in > play for each entity > > The next step would be for us to discuss these proposals and see if we > can find some common ground. Our thinking is that we would appoint a > neutral editor to document that common ground, which could come from > any proposal. > > The timing for any interim to discuss these depends very much on having > proposals. There are some drafts already of course, and we hope we can > have more soon. > > Thoughts? > > Eliot and Brian > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > From nobody Mon Aug 10 06:50:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBDA3A157C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwoDijg_pe-s for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4593A1574 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id q75so8941026iod.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1l4U166QHzIisdIVya9LzjyXhGwCePNNDI1w/c8GsxM=; b=LjKGvW1r6ZQ9OzpCepiicAYejHljfWdj1CqJOS14TZodfux1wge5ewGJAY2z5ub1UV wvjEfSt/EKtB+xI9YxkssyaOzOQSDYq38hXSyRLm+qiqschxk8Im3/0oz9bBp6YGjMgJ 7XzoBj86jKvdAZtVvPa0T6MmTEiG14yVQoSwdGmGt8cbYmcfENT462dX7dpv27v89LyF SnPcyFOVERtsktap3RiBeXjeIz1195WpioTgv4BCp41tJeoGztC8yaUCCe49VJLGDZhJ Oy60Uh4p7UuXtOX3ukrdT9W7mYV9Aa9Ub5OAqR4T1svt5tOwfxYjsMAq68zM0balKLQk CmGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1l4U166QHzIisdIVya9LzjyXhGwCePNNDI1w/c8GsxM=; b=PFqOnAu3/3ogx/bBR8Jr5/NYZ7yr83LP82WDEA/TrYtcsgGVzq+qUIkeUAowhZABPs KBE8U2lL2YPvOqBBTI9TTHMf5GXwLsEY2QIqmimCf8ZwZFzZKupExtYR385/uLBrq7EE 0Mcv2a6qYzv5SJoZAkVLtlbIt1k1+DK+HIU/lleqf2nnEToa6AwQtYP5GJPeaJCNAKS/ rAasdJmOvAzUvaSQfgWbDiR2Xe/YNptBgPed9oPj1/qQdc9s0fIm5lJPDW+ff2lCSdWD LhI53QetaSxeq/6dD9PmMaxu6WscbnX5ygrMJhX6AyCBHjZ1rL993AgB8sRvvw6O0fa9 fsHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xObG9I94jSBE5G36tOhuEJaIyv/Z990AzosrjBfhifPJ970ww pBBgbctljUp+0SRSHY6xkD+yYM6N538= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSle3qrTShF/RgaUNXhCBVONozrG75pLM3aFR4B+W15+fsTenkYY0dQKybsxTc3/UwC1MvDQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9c0c:: with SMTP id 12mr17917341ioe.142.1597067420801; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8sm11590388ilc.43.2020.08.10.06.50.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Brian Rosen In-Reply-To: <7d7a228a-5182-4afc-b804-1ab0c5250ac2@www.fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:50:19 -0400 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <89EA2360-A6A3-4E17-B39C-A457EB9ADD45@brianrosen.net> References: <7d7a228a-5182-4afc-b804-1ab0c5250ac2@www.fastmail.com> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Next Step - proposals? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:50:25 -0000 Great, thanks. Let=E2=80=99s keep those proposals coming. Doesn=E2=80=99= t have to be pretty, just get the ideas down. Brian > On Aug 9, 2020, at 10:43 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian, >=20 > I just updated and posted = . I = believe that the original did address your requirements already, but = I've added a little bit more content and made a few corrections. >=20 > Cheers, > Martin >=20 > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, at 00:55, Brian Rosen wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >>=20 >> The chairs would like to thank you for participating in the IETF 108=20= >> meeting of the RFC Editor Futures program. We learned quite a bit at=20= >> that meeting, not the least of which was that the group is not yet=20 >> prepared to choose a direction. >>=20 >> Therefore, what we are thinking is that the next step should be for=20= >> people to develop fleshed out proposals. It would be good to have=20 >> several alternatives that explore the different philosophies that = have=20 >> been expressed in the group. Each proposal should be very clear on a=20= >> few points: >>=20 >> * Overall motivation and philosophy >> * What each proposed entity is responsible for >> * What the relationship of each entity is to other entities=20 >> * What accountability, selection, and transparency mechanisms are in=20= >> play for each entity >>=20 >> The next step would be for us to discuss these proposals and see if = we=20 >> can find some common ground. Our thinking is that we would appoint a=20= >> neutral editor to document that common ground, which could come from=20= >> any proposal. >>=20 >> The timing for any interim to discuss these depends very much on = having=20 >> proposals. There are some drafts already of course, and we hope we = can=20 >> have more soon. >>=20 >> Thoughts? >>=20 >> Eliot and Brian >> --=20 >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Thu Aug 13 01:05:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4673A0854 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, EMPTY_MESSAGE=2.32, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AW4usIcax0T for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x241.google.com (mail-lj1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FFD73A085A for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x241.google.com with SMTP id z14so5204036ljm.1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:05:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Fkm03+wwhYHT8jQd/sYARJY+u/r8S8R9wKMLL+jorOM=; b=rUYIK6eQKQBcgVD50NwEtizy2oHFQ+xlUrVK2YJaGJW/XWwJ3BKevIlko9xdXLD2m+ V1j9dDI8pccvh3gtoQSzuhSboRNRfyNAvCC6WEHsGivjmaxswMOni7wpFFTveExCP5TV G5I4Tq/QfW1vDfvHRXqYqyH0uwvjXeFSriAlUov7uziaJU9g60nOG6gVB52RLI/Xqneg di3VajQD+YBW1YoTl3C+juQJRKYmHBIdSGfU6tGxgNmD+kqhcBUi7MMQN4HxXnyHkzoh nu++VLtvoxmhSVwBygKNu8jCn1CBS5LsFZBYXjAlGbpL3XNZiECE6LJOZWA4h6rG4q7/ 4M8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Fkm03+wwhYHT8jQd/sYARJY+u/r8S8R9wKMLL+jorOM=; b=Fqev1YJP3OGVszl2Co+UCRa/MBUMD4ZYM3NLVcorWT5YiJa82flIgqHr4tevO+imzs XwEzEhl5YhaVsvj4exbENsyD8AxzD9w8GCj83c5WfV2Rlv+b4ma72vUjZqwmyPt7ybk/ WtZ6HOiUd6DF82Qf0aKVJVhGIixF6ORVZ/4lyMyla5LXHCKl+nETmwmTNCQBuwnZu1wB /ahhNNHgBVLga0wt6E/eXfn8Z9qmniDH/41IolqykV6reyqLHR34yle/5UpXWDlYmmrV DY4t4YmJPkbyEo2oOiB40jyxSxM1AlN6894q3fTsoRiLi2hglEfASoldOXeYry1p82bg ZGaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ktAN03DBRNgaU4+b+Kxjw8Wcr07drE+7qzqhpMIFQFdMPw9gp 1JV/c7Bkh2KtOw77Ez2Sg7ULIUrea5dCXgRxlOzanoWp X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwoNx4RmIsBjXes3XoYx4tZ6Rmw3Ar3mX7oCRzO0+kAjtfWyDxf7n2pDDYdPFi+FeU8BAeeJO8LBROpRpwQTGU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:988a:: with SMTP id b10mr1354812ljj.26.1597305933000; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:05:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: =?UTF-8?B?4Lil4LmN4Liy4LmD4LiiIOC4nuC4o+C4oeC4oeC4teC5gOC4lOC4ig==?= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:05:19 +0700 Message-ID: To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbf42c05acbdc483" Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:05:37 -0000 --000000000000bbf42c05acbdc483 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" --000000000000bbf42c05acbdc483 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
--000000000000bbf42c05acbdc483-- From nobody Sat Aug 15 21:25:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3343A003F for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpG6PCso3h-y for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F6C43A00E5 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id l60so6162066pjb.3 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8v5s3B2u1lliEgLTD6n7uOYIWvnlidfRPyq5jgKAnt4=; b=gd09lynxyAMA7V9i2rlMkRm3FdCXCrn3qc3hN4Ol1FugpJfjunNa4Z3axEzW9k6I0O 6dzXVQ1HBH33LxqfACb0Ikee+CKRL7ZmDEfTxX6PMCQ9HX8Ix2B+Keo39HowIU4mZGd/ ou0S0Z5JlIdW3P6nKXUoPD1NHYbFclpIE5yoAHxx9VMv9iBQ4FBXaQiPIfNSPQ/CcVvw hlkYn0Ewu5C9BN69z57zpd1vIX7zizy/Ym0r0GJFcKsnakonnOYw+G4ixgi/Yf6VAnf3 ILi+fm+JMcaCK/i6/053dMkUvTL2SgVpS8y9Z9A5xgivjWYh2iDEro6ehu+s17em3hGK LB/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8v5s3B2u1lliEgLTD6n7uOYIWvnlidfRPyq5jgKAnt4=; b=DiDAuI3R3TY9cGAPPUetTHB8g7xNj/lZkppnWyagAdYrlaU32Ef1M4yhC8MXpGSu90 F6co2j0Qnjbedf3p5omFy00Cp15Q3wYYwbxTEQ9DA5LmfeDWRj7iR4DsEUmoyPfSbZ2u RhiDv5ln6Xxl9o+IqBVQXwPLQorLmhaRIEFo1x1gLlaHvPsXJhd7tPiRuShy+YfnrDje jlKtrvSwmljtWTo74RRTwRFbCK1h7a9Evo2TAG/x9+odkoMEzyxI3IqofO6Z0YwcbTIQ AdcUTs1wrUU59Zi8i9O0SQ/ff9k585WJ85iOeZeyXMAwHu4QnKIMlM0NQaVlpSte4DpR GNXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DD0MVYFvkcJIW5OJ/XCmJBsmru8NIwPtJ0I0kRXwQiRt0oKJA ntwfIN5FM60L23RtcH3n3Qs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8Na6d5wQn7Ln2LQmYAsPw1q9PRYAW9eKZ/PD79yekrVAfywYNPcSqRuSrY1Kr1xQ3qn8Pog== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c591:: with SMTP id l17mr7724618pjt.17.1597551935357; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mj6sm12518092pjb.15.2020.08.15.21.25.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:25:34 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 16:25:30 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 04:25:38 -0000 Martin, Thanks for the update. I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the *execution* of the production and publication process should continue to be contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC business. Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and evolution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the IETF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all RFC Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution of this community process must explicitly include a role for each stream. For clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory Working Group (RSAWG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely open group but with mandatory membership from each stream. The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there should be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but it would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC series coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest that we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing series. I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the strategy process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own right, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document scheme. I believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since the contracts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB to "approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor". Since the strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need the IAB to approve "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board for that. One place where your model breaks is: "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of this material." I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in developing or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical (non-linguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community (in my model, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other publishing-related issues arise, they need expertise that the technical community doesn't have. What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, except that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need expertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the RSAWG (but it should have independent chairs). They do development work on the strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and to the RPC when needed. They are under a professional services contract with the LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). I largely agree with what you say about tools development and support, except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later parts of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly against. However, there is one factual error in section 8: "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group and the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under RFC8730, so it is completely out of scope here. Regards Brian On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publication > Author : Martin Thomson > Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2020-08-09 > > Abstract: > The finishing process for a document that is approved for publication > as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy process. > The system that executes that process involves a number of different > actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the > overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is > critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents > in the RFC series. > > This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to > provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for > each of the actors in this system. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > From nobody Sun Aug 16 18:28:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C743A12D0 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 18:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=ibzceX7c; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=lMmuB4yO Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 579AxOtakhs0 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 18:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1053A12CE for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 18:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E06414; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 21:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 Aug 2020 21:28:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=bI044pMxb6dA3li9/PrW0ymiIyioiCp 3YkXk+o8m8NQ=; b=ibzceX7cV9zbLWxwO1dKKfVXJl2pfavsEVbQ/kaSHMLp5zn tc0MREE1OC+HtpfBJQ48FlvmE8shfitCgBHeZpgtqBjKoNNYwFvPiVwlZudMyrUB PoT8rRR28h8dcV7VDNkXgXf1WKMi7X8R85paMirYGgyO/o2xwR1ud34PriM+9Gw8 6HiSjFkNON2smvJz48h1Qn77tnf8YVR3zBkjyGy1JiFmCwXO6+fREnskxIJ0BNzH gsXNXzIT/+XNZIhT8yuMRaYgq9JONmkfNhwAYoUM5scBH6ek+dXLsS9Vjn5bK+Rm 0nH04OJ2B2YNaqLc2ZwIKiC5iQRgd06sp8pOHpw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=bI044p Mxb6dA3li9/PrW0ymiIyioiCp3YkXk+o8m8NQ=; b=lMmuB4yOEUy3+V0EN1UuIP QAWBnSHWEe+k8+0rHLselAU2M3amRPqaLsSfNApldfa6v5utGkgTjBFkj4VA0nsx B8Pgn2rXKtcwzZb5tHaqZqXZTjlUZUEcq8iV42/1RlG5a5DeQVxIi47ws6lL1/mK DfLVKaAfg7WORyOR5QFPFkYNKKVMLglCRnEMNF3CKct5rnQaOpcARLPPPrBKXdp4 8OkkfzprF/1jhwm/IdApvgFPGHb5lqzkzYsDziPog2gakw9+wKTa5o9GB3TgPFMr jNhnp0H5D85xlnsf9AnBVqKQ7kijIF5rcK2woZCD+3kNIGkYX58zpKVSiyZIOqLA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddtvddggeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghr thhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfeitddtveeihfejjefgveefuedugffgkeevkeehueeggeelveek veektdfhueeinecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhn vght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8CBC8E00BF; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 21:27:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-185-g038a4a3-fm-20200813.001-g038a4a3b Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:27:03 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:28:03 -0000 Hi Brian, I'm glad to see that we only disagree on relatively minor points. I think that your main points are: 1. You don't want the IAB to host this. This seems to be your principal objection. We might need to discuss more on this point, because I'm not sure that I fully understand why you have such a strong objection. I don't have any specific objection to asking the ISOC Board to act as a process backstop as an alternative, but I would be uncomfortable asking them to help resolve disputes as the first point of escalation. 2. You are concerned about style guide (and similar) maintenance. I had imagined that this would follow the usual model for things that are ostensibly developed in working groups. Those most invested in its maintenance would supply the work, but the product would be discussed and approved by the working group. This is somewhat unique in that there are not multiple (competing) stakeholders, but I can't see how that would be a deal breaker. 3. You want to have a role for some individual in this process. I'm opposed to that, especially if they are on the escalation path for disputes. I think that the publication stream question is one best resolved secondarily. If this creates a new body with new publication needs, then new streams naturally flow from that. (I corrected the factual inaccuracy, thanks for catching that. I got myself confused about the two bodies that advised the RSE: but it's RSAG and RSOC, not RSEB, confusing as that name is.) On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, at 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Martin, > > Thanks for the update. > > I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the > *execution* of the production and publication process should continue > to be contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC > business. > > Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and > evolution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the > IETF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all > RFC Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution > of this community process must explicitly include a role for each > stream. For clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory > Working Group (RSAWG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely > open group but with mandatory membership from each stream. > > The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there should > be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but it > would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC > series coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest > that we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing > series. > > I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the strategy > process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own > right, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document scheme. > I believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since the > contracts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB to > "approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor". > Since the strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need the > IAB to approve "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". > > Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor > and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board for > that. > > One place where your model breaks is: > > "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and > maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that > the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of > this material." > > I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in > developing or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical > (non-linguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community > (in my model, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other > publishing-related issues arise, they need expertise that the technical > community doesn't have. > > What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, except > that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need > expertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the > RSAWG (but it should have independent chairs). They do development work > on the strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and > to the RPC when needed. They are under a professional services contract > with the LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). > > I largely agree with what you say about tools development and support, > except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. > > Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later parts > of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly > against. However, there is one factual error in section 8: > > "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group and > the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." > > The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under > RFC8730, so it is completely out of scope here. > > Regards > Brian > > On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > > > > Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publication > > Author : Martin Thomson > > Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt > > Pages : 16 > > Date : 2020-08-09 > > > > Abstract: > > The finishing process for a document that is approved for publication > > as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy process. > > The system that executes that process involves a number of different > > actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the > > overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is > > critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents > > in the RFC series. > > > > This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to > > provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for > > each of the actors in this system. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > From nobody Sun Aug 16 19:21:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9423A12EC for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KU6VsnKGe7RN for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56293A12EB for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id k13so6738205plk.13 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GYO1+A0CS9KXF/dyLEgn2CNDwECup7xM3C1upGKB01Y=; b=tL5yDBboXz9JSnS4RkZUJDwFq0YYfIaE1bI56rJsVgOT4rKgtcp7/p64cBT/XGXvCI vkWQWKjfYjmB0ycXoRrQQk7jdMf8TFHSMAnvQygaBJOuQVWRfGnbPqW9AZbix3xzktfF VQs5V6wGZIOATUmurHmlCcT5u+KF6tewTeVHvn/O/2Rg+CdC8WI6r5vy2WfwTX191dSH Hl/0t+jXgz4cdiXaO6AB2VAynQ1nY8UWt3qSczQ1Nm7SUAB6mff1T+oLwk3rjpJx35d/ lhk8m/RGnMPFdKBvDYVA9wClot15F6okkABIvNMvOcQsnnHHGjgNGZqZkHK5qhGzE2cu girA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GYO1+A0CS9KXF/dyLEgn2CNDwECup7xM3C1upGKB01Y=; b=BQK6XiSttPz0Y6SxGLDw0qsVjA3llIptGVj6DR/oe5lcJDPf19d/53lkXDSkDI/B/C UJp+piudd5H+m6uVqGtHReFi99b7ZDs3GA7XKx/7dK1mYNkGslhW1IxHdi+1UvVTqRzE ZvZxrv5mFvNXFqHpkAyICnikPiQiEHtAF5TvZd99HgOMxS71ukdAjyxAAhMrg+hs1uHF 8kfjeWM4xY1lcI0AqXV3f1/MtYIstFb5iJCqqFa/iBFGmO9hRjrvJZ2lvOOWx/cwUmK0 ZI16lSvDuqf9F2tLIB5T+F8/XvCK4cLupVIUIeXVA9lSrYW5VIqqwB28deWiL3ZmOFUq E2RQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309Icy/eEL2t2+nWc2DuoQnRr1PkvF2Fqt4Gi4Q9vFqxxTqjgaY jfx3LpG8JCieSkFg9CymQexVuQ65p5F8vw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/td0H7aqbhkC60z+MM4tzb+CyRvxKZloy45g+TrJxyTiwdqFUZ4fZ8PYQmbR2XwUOOsAC3w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d597:: with SMTP id v23mr10315239pju.24.1597630862761; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a5sm16726201pfi.79.2020.08.16.19.21.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:21:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:20:59 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 02:21:06 -0000 Martin, On the main points where we disagree: > 1. You don't want the IAB to host this. Correct. To be completely clear, I've been concerned since 1994 when I joined the IAB that it couldn't focus enough on the architecture of the Internet as such, and I still have that concern. This isn't the place to deconstruct the IAB's charter in general, but I believe it is desirable to remove as much as possible of an administrative nature from the IAB's remit. So let's remove the publishing business. > 3. You want to have a role for some individual in this process. I'm opposed to that, especially if they are on the escalation path for disputes. I agree with the second half of that - by choosing the name Advisor, I intended to make it clear that this would be an outside expert with a skill set that "we" don't have. So the escalation path would be via the chairs of the new group. I wrote that the Advisor would *convene* the group in the sense of scheduling meetings, etc., since this would be day-job stuff for them, but presumably volunteer work for the chairs. But frankly I think that *not* having an expert advisor would be a case of engineer hubris. My experience in the RSAG is that a publishing expert knows stuff (and where to find stuff) that we don't. There are a few members of the technical community with some relevant knowledge, of course, but that's no substitute for a professional. If we don't have an expert advisor *outside the contractor* we have lost a key element in controlling the strategy. Would Elsevier or Springer design protocols? I hope not. So who are we protocol engineers to run a technical publisher? Regards Brian On 17-Aug-20 13:27, Martin Thomson wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I'm glad to see that we only disagree on relatively minor points. > > I think that your main points are: > > 1. You don't want the IAB to host this. This seems to be your principal objection. We might need to discuss more on this point, because I'm not sure that I fully understand why you have such a strong objection. I don't have any specific objection to asking the ISOC Board to act as a process backstop as an alternative, but I would be uncomfortable asking them to help resolve disputes as the first point of escalation. > > 2. You are concerned about style guide (and similar) maintenance. I had imagined that this would follow the usual model for things that are ostensibly developed in working groups. Those most invested in its maintenance would supply the work, but the product would be discussed and approved by the working group. This is somewhat unique in that there are not multiple (competing) stakeholders, but I can't see how that would be a deal breaker. > > 3. You want to have a role for some individual in this process. I'm opposed to that, especially if they are on the escalation path for disputes. > > I think that the publication stream question is one best resolved secondarily. If this creates a new body with new publication needs, then new streams naturally flow from that. > > (I corrected the factual inaccuracy, thanks for catching that. I got myself confused about the two bodies that advised the RSE: but it's RSAG and RSOC, not RSEB, confusing as that name is.) > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, at 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Martin, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the >> *execution* of the production and publication process should continue >> to be contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC >> business. >> >> Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and >> evolution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the >> IETF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all >> RFC Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution >> of this community process must explicitly include a role for each >> stream. For clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory >> Working Group (RSAWG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely >> open group but with mandatory membership from each stream. >> >> The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there should >> be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but it >> would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC >> series coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest >> that we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing >> series. >> >> I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the strategy >> process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own >> right, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document scheme. >> I believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since the >> contracts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB to >> "approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor". >> Since the strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need the >> IAB to approve "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". >> >> Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor >> and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board for >> that. >> >> One place where your model breaks is: >> >> "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and >> maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that >> the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of >> this material." >> >> I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in >> developing or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical >> (non-linguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community >> (in my model, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other >> publishing-related issues arise, they need expertise that the technical >> community doesn't have. >> >> What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, except >> that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need >> expertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the >> RSAWG (but it should have independent chairs). They do development work >> on the strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and >> to the RPC when needed. They are under a professional services contract >> with the LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). >> >> I largely agree with what you say about tools development and support, >> except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. >> >> Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later parts >> of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly >> against. However, there is one factual error in section 8: >> >> "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group and >> the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." >> >> The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under >> RFC8730, so it is completely out of scope here. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>> >>> >>> Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publication >>> Author : Martin Thomson >>> Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt >>> Pages : 16 >>> Date : 2020-08-09 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> The finishing process for a document that is approved for publication >>> as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy process. >>> The system that executes that process involves a number of different >>> actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the >>> overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is >>> critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents >>> in the RFC series. >>> >>> This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to >>> provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for >>> each of the actors in this system. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ >>> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >> > From nobody Sun Aug 16 19:39:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB7D3A12FA for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=VQ4UuxN/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ZF2atQ01 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PGjwoWCEDfHc for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDA333A12F7 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 19:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDE2437; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 22:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 Aug 2020 22:39:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=k WbnQEZTBZkMX7cVkmMYTnKM5+M+1f07qJZIN+3NYfM=; b=VQ4UuxN/E01NOkKbN cjep16jq8yAcFQ3TYrs/7JFG4L2A8Ko/KKang3y9fdH/SUSkDRKmBY+K9Cyddyzq gBThX9szwo8YKRioFmgmuF018gSYzAF1lvto5Qf/zR3vC0pB89Ek5pS3k41nG81Y 1GmtKuGh/vRK0CP6QJP80sx2byS+CPfYDLq9m/74/GmoGCPCjZPeGltjxXWqW4u1 PB13K4nOZVDjhrHDU//x7brhtWCkcLH0x8QHvk2i6CRTqv4D9tyV22eIXZCYF5Yt Ghm0gMMkG/jxCG5RaM+vPsqRBdYdEiwpCMsftAVoM9u2PGtyzynWK83juRpTfp3L bwtUA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=kWbnQEZTBZkMX7cVkmMYTnKM5+M+1f07qJZIN+3NY fM=; b=ZF2atQ01NXFw3hDRtItOYr25nR/cQZOGOgQPhzNckFg2nQ3F7SeG/UgjN 9sHlY62GGT0hYLjxrmGrGnpvaxFey/ierWWR7QqDumUkesgElUgcmtgSXDDKdJtP o/TRE01qC/BkWDvG0NijUGS8TUb1AFWO87c34PVhXx4Ayg2O4adRrKIpvcT8A6b6 zBqqDwlc0j2dSGCrKBb4qzitURWrLahF4zXtxEp5jA8OetYrzgWUfDvGS6n0q/pq QSpd0tMZwlQBwMWMd8/hcKnnFmXWnJhbn4pk7R7TBsGbwvSHyhq/5fH0aoIqp6+L jnA3oT3KdOKD2fbE4T3iyONNgzuAQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddtvddgieefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeiteduuddvudfftedtuddvgeehtdeuheehjeegledtleekvefgffehfefffeff gfenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhirggsrdhorhhgpdhmnhhothdrnhgvth enucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptden ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6CDC2328005A; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 22:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:39:13 +1000 Cc: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 02:39:21 -0000 At a high level - I want to see broad participation, transparency and = accountability in the body that we're talking about (naming later). I = think Martin's draft largely accomplishes these.=20 Some responses to the points Brian has made below. > On 17 Aug 2020, at 12:20 pm, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Martin, >=20 > On the main points where we disagree: >=20 >> 1. You don't want the IAB to host this. >=20 > Correct. To be completely clear, I've been concerned since 1994 when I = joined the IAB that it couldn't focus enough on the architecture of the = Internet as such, and I still have that concern. This isn't the place to = deconstruct the IAB's charter in general, but I believe it is desirable = to remove as much as possible of an administrative nature from the IAB's = remit. So let's remove the publishing business. I think many share that concern; seeing how much time the IAB currently = spends on appointments alone, I certainly do. Personally, beyond that motivation I don't have any strong feeling about = whether or not the IAB is the right party to oversee this body. It = would be good to choose something that has a real connection with the = communities that are affected by it. It's also important to assure that = the process has overall legitimacy -- e.g., with depth of the appeals = chain, etc. The ISOC Board might be sufficient. Are there alternatives, or = additional bodies we can add?=20 >> 3. You want to have a role for some individual in this process. I'm = opposed to that, especially if they are on the escalation path for = disputes. >=20 > I agree with the second half of that - by choosing the name Advisor, I = intended to make it clear that this would be an outside expert with a = skill set that "we" don't have. So the escalation path would be via the = chairs of the new group. I wrote that the Advisor would *convene* the = group in the sense of scheduling meetings, etc., since this would be = day-job stuff for them, but presumably volunteer work for the chairs. >=20 > But frankly I think that *not* having an expert advisor would be a = case of engineer hubris. My experience in the RSAG is that a publishing = expert knows stuff (and where to find stuff) that we don't. There are a = few members of the technical community with some relevant knowledge, of = course, but that's no substitute for a professional. If we don't have an = expert advisor *outside the contractor* we have lost a key element in = controlling the strategy. >=20 > Would Elsevier or Springer design protocols? I hope not. So who are we = protocol engineers to run a technical publisher? I agree that we will need -- at least from time to time -- to procure = expert advice. Perhaps it's worth exploring two questions: 1. Is the role of the Advisor both prominent and well-understood enough = to enshrine it in the structure of this body? 2. Should the role of the Advisor be conflated with the leadership of = this body? Cheers, >=20 > Regards > Brian >=20 > On 17-Aug-20 13:27, Martin Thomson wrote: >> Hi Brian, >>=20 >> I'm glad to see that we only disagree on relatively minor points. >>=20 >> I think that your main points are: >>=20 >> 1. You don't want the IAB to host this. This seems to be your = principal objection. We might need to discuss more on this point, = because I'm not sure that I fully understand why you have such a strong = objection. I don't have any specific objection to asking the ISOC Board = to act as a process backstop as an alternative, but I would be = uncomfortable asking them to help resolve disputes as the first point of = escalation. >>=20 >> 2. You are concerned about style guide (and similar) maintenance. I = had imagined that this would follow the usual model for things that are = ostensibly developed in working groups. Those most invested in its = maintenance would supply the work, but the product would be discussed = and approved by the working group. This is somewhat unique in that = there are not multiple (competing) stakeholders, but I can't see how = that would be a deal breaker. >>=20 >> 3. You want to have a role for some individual in this process. I'm = opposed to that, especially if they are on the escalation path for = disputes. >>=20 >> I think that the publication stream question is one best resolved = secondarily. If this creates a new body with new publication needs, = then new streams naturally flow from that. >>=20 >> (I corrected the factual inaccuracy, thanks for catching that. I got = myself confused about the two bodies that advised the RSE: but it's RSAG = and RSOC, not RSEB, confusing as that name is.) >>=20 >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, at 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Martin, >>>=20 >>> Thanks for the update. >>>=20 >>> I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the=20 >>> *execution* of the production and publication process should = continue=20 >>> to be contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC=20= >>> business. >>>=20 >>> Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and=20 >>> evolution should be done by a community process seems right. Using = the=20 >>> IETF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that = all=20 >>> RFC Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the = constitution=20 >>> of this community process must explicitly include a role for each=20 >>> stream. For clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory=20 >>> Working Group (RSAWG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely=20= >>> open group but with mandatory membership from each stream. >>>=20 >>> The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there = should=20 >>> be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but it=20= >>> would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC=20 >>> series coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I = suggest=20 >>> that we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing=20= >>> series. >>>=20 >>> I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the = strategy=20 >>> process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own=20 >>> right, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document = scheme.=20 >>> I believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since = the=20 >>> contracts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB = to=20 >>> "approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor".=20= >>> Since the strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need = the=20 >>> IAB to approve "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". >>>=20 >>> Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor=20= >>> and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board = for=20 >>> that. >>>=20 >>> One place where your model breaks is: >>>=20 >>> "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and=20= >>> maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes = that=20 >>> the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of=20= >>> this material." >>>=20 >>> I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in=20 >>> developing or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When = technical=20 >>> (non-linguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community=20= >>> (in my model, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other=20 >>> publishing-related issues arise, they need expertise that the = technical=20 >>> community doesn't have. >>>=20 >>> What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, = except=20 >>> that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need=20= >>> expertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the=20= >>> RSAWG (but it should have independent chairs). They do development = work=20 >>> on the strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG = and=20 >>> to the RPC when needed. They are under a professional services = contract=20 >>> with the LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). >>>=20 >>> I largely agree with what you say about tools development and = support,=20 >>> except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. >>>=20 >>> Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later = parts=20 >>> of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly=20 >>> against. However, there is one factual error in section 8: >>>=20 >>> "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group = and=20 >>> the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." >>>=20 >>> The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under=20 >>> RFC8730, so it is completely out of scope here. >>>=20 >>> Regards >>> Brian >>>=20 >>> On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and = Publication >>>> Author : Martin Thomson >>>> Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt >>>> Pages : 16 >>>> Date : 2020-08-09 >>>>=20 >>>> Abstract: >>>> The finishing process for a document that is approved for = publication >>>> as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy = process. >>>> The system that executes that process involves a number of = different >>>> actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the >>>> overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly = is >>>> critical to the mission of the organizations that publish = documents >>>> in the RFC series. >>>>=20 >>>> This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to >>>> provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility = for >>>> each of the actors in this system. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ >>>>=20 >>>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>>>=20 >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. >>>>=20 >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Mon Aug 17 00:18:14 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC913A13D7 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xD_mrQ1TfAyE for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 130CF3A13D8 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:18:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597648691; x=1598858291; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PmSDM3/5B+CEojrqGnU9d1f3M+ARPl2RqJDZXmd/zrs=; b=FonorT+pTkHHm0CXiVnz5md2sZpJmQBaYjGwxT6FdVJpSEGYPLbqPboh dkP73tpJv2SKc5xmV+2N4HZLVBn+crJok8vSM4WgZ8oQgDKhPKBYSv6Ai yYi+J8f+gornBlSisGv1XhYA8rYuU88LyxHBoXrxJi9LHa5kyTzbWByH6 s=; X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BOAwBVLjpf/xbLJq1fHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?UqDGlQBIBIshDeJAYd9JYECiQaSDAsBAQEMAQEYCwwEAQGETAKCSCU4EwIDA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAwIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVxAQEBAwEBASFIAwsFCwsYAgImAgIhB?= =?us-ascii?q?jAGEwkLB4MLAYJLAw4gD65kdoEyhDsBAwIOQUKCbA2CIoEOKo04ggCBEScME?= =?us-ascii?q?IIYNT6CGjcLAQEBAQEBFYFGgxczgi0Ej0FFpVhRgmyDC4VYjD6EfwMegwCBI?= =?us-ascii?q?4g5hQqOO5QliFeCZYMbiySDWAIEBgUCFYFqI4FXMxoIGxUaISoBgj4JNRIZD?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4rF4hihUQ/AzACNQIGAQkBAQMJkS4BAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,322,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="26372899" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 Aug 2020 07:18:06 +0000 Received: from [10.61.198.117] ([10.61.198.117]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07H7I5mf005571 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:18:06 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:18:05 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.198.117, [10.61.198.117] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 07:18:13 -0000 Just as a reminder: This is one proposal. Others are welcome. If we don=E2=80=99t get = others, this will be the one we focus on, as we move forward. The = chairs also intend to set a time table very shortly on this. Eliot > On 16 Aug 2020, at 06:25, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Martin, >=20 > Thanks for the update. >=20 > I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the = *execution* of the production and publication process should continue to = be contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC = business. >=20 > Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and = evolution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the = IETF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all = RFC Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution of = this community process must explicitly include a role for each stream. = For clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory Working Group = (RSAWG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely open group but = with mandatory membership from each stream. >=20 > The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there = should be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but = it would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC = series coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest = that we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing = series. >=20 > I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the = strategy process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its = own right, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document = scheme. I believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. = Since the contracts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need = the IAB to "approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC = Editor". Since the strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer = need the IAB to approve "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". >=20 > Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor = and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board for = that. >=20 > One place where your model breaks is: >=20 > "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and = maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that = the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of = this material." >=20 > I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in = developing or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical = (non-linguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community (in = my model, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other = publishing-related issues arise, they need expertise that the technical = community doesn't have. >=20 > What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, except = that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need = expertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the RSAWG = (but it should have independent chairs). They do development work on the = strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and to the = RPC when needed. They are under a professional services contract with = the LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). >=20 > I largely agree with what you say about tools development and support, = except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. >=20 > Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later parts = of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly against. = However, there is one factual error in section 8: >=20 > "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group = and the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." >=20 > The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under = RFC8730, so it is completely out of scope here. >=20 > Regards > Brian >=20 > On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>=20 >>=20 >> Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and = Publication >> Author : Martin Thomson >> Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt >> Pages : 16 >> Date : 2020-08-09 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> The finishing process for a document that is approved for = publication >> as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy = process. >> The system that executes that process involves a number of = different >> actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the >> overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is >> critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents >> in the RFC series. >>=20 >> This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to >> provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for >> each of the actors in this system. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ >>=20 >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>=20 >>=20 >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Mon Aug 17 13:48:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33013A114C for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDx0UWmi-B1q for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F08633A1141 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id f5so8128461plr.9 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3nr2EbJt5yUiSKhrhibX7B6z7UeCT+Uf1ky+bAsMWL4=; b=BjDbxpXQq2190rE07FHdFvlLhT65XfIle0Ng8kgsrZ3csBT+FDPv56SGTlvwTTFk5E 4+766Z9BpFH/yjZDxcm5ofpZludKjJIrxdMTPE0huwBcVK7FsvY4R2ZnflAvC+D9J4hP 8T2lm1EhmDycuASFy6Hk+MrPPHPX9qwwCV0n6+IPH5ysr3hRRbuF/5Txs/rmTptaCDnn IVpZRbeQzh/6zZv+SUotxJSfHTlt2GKjXcs7tOZ8S0NorrU3QkJNsypXhFyXDNq3/Yd+ ks2EbH2KrSvOM952owX+Rl9xkNTKCM8YMQy+yz27T6B8MmylHmLMPS84OTPwETp+ejCX Vxmg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3nr2EbJt5yUiSKhrhibX7B6z7UeCT+Uf1ky+bAsMWL4=; b=DGiF2HEF6JdEdzPGTm0//jg9ezqNrxH7cJaLqKLVmsYzJRaVWmZzxzWS6hx1MDTLEB XkQIKgZb5c5I7MUeeokolj/DGx7tWkbRtcj24IMINNlDkd9GAOHIIUWHIatsjniEazIV Exdo9zV8PyYTESTKwk5Pyuq5iyuqJ8YZ9lVsXMp+J8YBjCxNp1daTUthXZF6Rtk+Rtoi BdBX3FLpbA7IthMVLI7+v4g6FfEML0GwxQurSEFUufs3vMEB8+mvDIsJ9dlnatnqBZTI M0CLXekAe7jspJPjiDLjumWIOZOZ7Tdl1Vp/mT4RyJjh5HXfgHt3Ctil29ChHL11NAtC e/vA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306+9X+pSD4FV6ER2FeXurHnvJEgow8mD6Jc2BqzpPCKcmSXlnt 9gSd4vX7F47LMij4lojnfA0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrVJbCERUPInREkB4bidPYgmQlhmuaK3vJDwceoSAE5aRnpqamqUSRUPmJQ1HqOO64LudRfA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ff0e:: with SMTP id ce14mr14188239pjb.128.1597697331217; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm19308461pjc.15.2020.08.17.13.48.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:48:50 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <0267bbdb-c636-9e30-8a33-75d1906eb425@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:48:47 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:48:54 -0000 Eliot, That puts me in a small dilemma. I rather like the *structure* of Martin'= s draft and rather disagree with some of its major proposals. Would you prefer to see an alternative draft which borrows heavily from h= is draft, or continued discussion on the list, or something else? Regards Brian Carpenter On 17-Aug-20 19:18, Eliot Lear wrote: > Just as a reminder: >=20 > This is one proposal. Others are welcome. If we don=E2=80=99t get oth= ers, this will be the one we focus on, as we move forward. The chairs al= so intend to set a time table very shortly on this. >=20 > Eliot >=20 >> On 16 Aug 2020, at 06:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> Martin, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the *execu= tion* of the production and publication process should continue to be con= tracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC business. >> >> Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and evol= ution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the IETF W= G process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all RFC Strea= ms have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution of this comm= unity process must explicitly include a role for each stream. For clarity= , I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory Working Group (RSAWG) from= now on. I'd tend to make it a completely open group but with mandatory m= embership from each stream. >> >> The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there shoul= d be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but it wo= uld avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC series co= ming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest that we ta= ke the current opportunity for reform to add this missing series. >> >> I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the strateg= y process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own right= , with equal ties to each entity that produces a document scheme. I belie= ve we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since the contracts = will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB to "approve the= appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor". Since the strategy= will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need the IAB to approve "the = general policy followed by the RFC Editor". >> >> Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an anchor a= nd a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board for th= at. >> >> One place where your model breaks is: >> >> "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce and m= aintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that the = RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of this mat= erial." >> >> I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in developi= ng or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical (non-lingu= istic) questions arise, they need to consult the community (in my model, = via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other publishing-related issu= es arise, they need expertise that the technical community doesn't have. >> >> What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, except = that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need exper= tise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the RSAWG (but = it should have independent chairs). They do development work on the strat= egy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and to the RPC whe= n needed. They are under a professional services contract with the LLC (w= hich is highly unlikely to be full time). >> >> I largely agree with what you say about tools development and support,= except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. >> >> Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later parts= of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly against.= However, there is one factual error in section 8: >> >> "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group an= d the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." >> >> The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under RFC87= 30, so it is completely out of scope here. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts di= rectories. >>> >>> >>> Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publica= tion >>> Author : Martin Thomson >>> Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt >>> Pages : 16 >>> Date : 2020-08-09 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> The finishing process for a document that is approved for publicati= on >>> as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy proces= s. >>> The system that executes that process involves a number of differen= t >>> actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the >>> overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is >>> critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents= >>> in the RFC series. >>> >>> This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to >>> provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for= >>> each of the actors in this system. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ >>> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thomson-rfced-model-01 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of sub= mission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >> >> --=20 >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Aug 17 14:04:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313ED3A11AA for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:04:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MjH7QWan8fpu for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5F653A11A0 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BVmkl05TWzyv2; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:04:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:04:30 +0200 Cc: Brian E Carpenter , rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619391070.605034-1461e23969aaaa381fbdda99cac0d819 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> To: Mark Nottingham X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 21:04:35 -0000 On 2020-08-17, at 04:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: >=20 > 1. Is the role of the Advisor both prominent and well-understood = enough to enshrine it in the structure of this body? > 2. Should the role of the Advisor be conflated with the leadership of = this body? Academia is a background where we know that having the right person on a = position can be crucial (we give out lifetime tenures!). So maybe I=E2=80= =99m biased. Re 1: Yes, I think that =E2=80=9CAdvisor" (if that is the new word for = the RSE) should have a prominent role. (Whether it is well-understood = yet, I don=E2=80=99t know.) Re 2: This is one of the questions that reminds one of a saying that = unfortunately involves domestic violence. I do believe that we will = find better =E2=80=9CAdvisors=E2=80=9D if that is a leadership role. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Mon Aug 17 16:30:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E94E3A144F for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:30:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=CLkaXp+Y; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Cn7ON696 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORx2awpewwpR for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED5853A1285 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486AD5C0164; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 19:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 19:30:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=+ 66baf7Ias1xegRWzbkuBW5K3LyoLybXjYK1Ylhqq7A=; b=CLkaXp+Yc1xZ2KPrZ 8YEh1VOyId76Y/tw7zujfSAoAyprWXTMHrY62umpZv/A5zLI1uXpsmpBZUf/m+gt /6MNrqlnMcQU8pej5CkqIXykV0LDn7fmt3wJFw2rjxYohIXD2PGaJ5jnfRSfJYoq JHNZmlZiX1nWCBCtXWBG4pZFZVBeHHEBbOvQf+tOjbYcCzNl+KryHn0SviYuVV6K YIREe+u6JyA0DdJuFFxVin01Hgdel45hb4yDjlczM2dydZbO60G2s+jPvBuIvqlV x3te/kdtEkFsX9t6Sw3GSXYqaZ8WIex7435sO64Qt5qEPry+Nfzh8wFxBRaeUXQa F0mXg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=+66baf7Ias1xegRWzbkuBW5K3LyoLybXjYK1Ylhqq 7A=; b=Cn7ON696WgT9gEViuMf40ONbaBBJ/vl8kRoM7DySwEfJe/LEzKknwxcqm C6tuN+vyGuHHNSprDq+bP0ROlQgAdHuKkDzapMLZxh0DJJPEaSSMxb6nPVA5uUov veYJegRsJG498wd10fssON2BSbGYiOqa/hRpW4VsgLxblMkXRmtlCoByKbW2eT6o qcgtzkTdquI0yJNeejPIGnQPFYCvEyb3uWh2JpSP5OGoyPIhML2nYKIe42jeAj71 k2uZKgItTb6EGPSYNE8djuPXB4DaasKb4aKtJ83sor7FbO5ZB3sH3z+pF0LKsWAc QFIvZ1k4E0aNwFwMpH9+0oHtrRRIw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddthedgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeetfeelffejfffhheehfeefgedulefgueejudekieegvdeghefffedvheffieel keenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvd ehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm nhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 23179328005E; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 19:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:30:43 +1000 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <10D4848D-7580-4B87-952F-5942CCA6B39A@mnot.net> References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:30:51 -0000 Hi Carsten, > On 18 Aug 2020, at 7:04 am, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > On 2020-08-17, at 04:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>=20 >> 1. Is the role of the Advisor both prominent and well-understood = enough to enshrine it in the structure of this body? >> 2. Should the role of the Advisor be conflated with the leadership of = this body? >=20 > Academia is a background where we know that having the right person on = a position can be crucial (we give out lifetime tenures!). So maybe = I=E2=80=99m biased. How often is tenure given to someone who then doesn't use that privilege = well? I have anecdotes from friends and family who are in academia, it'd = be interesting to compare notes. > Re 1: Yes, I think that =E2=80=9CAdvisor" (if that is the new word for = the RSE) should have a prominent role. (Whether it is well-understood = yet, I don=E2=80=99t know.) Why? > Re 2: This is one of the questions that reminds one of a saying that = unfortunately involves domestic violence. Sorry, I don't understand. > I do believe that we will find better =E2=80=9CAdvisors=E2=80=9D if = that is a leadership role. Why? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Mon Aug 17 16:50:43 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96A53A1484 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-Nws_LX664o for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95EB3A1481 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id s15so8703157qvv.7 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=/fMTLCgYCAzAvPe7SHCTNwJbEgwIxhjH7iWqHiX0h0o=; b=Zk6SXlZSEVO274XBLMRrfLiwe8Abd097s4rBP4OTXIBFrOCXaA8UELRmVY793s/uS7 d0pt3ujABCnF1zPfEh0tk7q2TeoUKsQUljR9NpjdhLEXs5DJktSuvbMWDJwnB7FRBahC dupCOzKYGkyIHU8gEdcQrsRComHt8XWdzbLPfP+AtY/yWsT9yOtnLiWXqxvwwrLMGBLV A/Pl0YDcksqFwWKQzYsvaT/Cduh1L/rwaSx1nP9bCKjXmQuViqCg37vMfneuFOFaN1Sr WJsTIWuG4ik8KVVk6CIH76SkZ6tSzmWZbkiKquK0KmXFHiMRzEGAJ4OGXut3PLFL7vmJ OIjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=/fMTLCgYCAzAvPe7SHCTNwJbEgwIxhjH7iWqHiX0h0o=; b=ZgCe4HXVKJhThPdr6w98ZGiSSGalMOeBUHeADQSspVdeInQx3bsaoAfljtIUxchL1j 7yYgtX0nxnqubsb/Ncx8IXalPqjqqUcKYFP7bobAZCU9piESxChWvPYt6SDlk5MUdu/m mZTgaXQEqh1kEr39EqQ0PpvawQn3YphgNKJbrUq4uiq8cYCa+C247X3TyVK9z4D/ksxT Eak5EymtV3uFx85QyTi7bbXg1r8UcGeuucfWdcJacvJYxyEHaKaaWI34kHhbpFEC7KYA XEBbfZvTo71L7CthpM8B3AKMRgVRNLkWWtr9IW6TTtM8+hS6NlezVqlU9+uBIcdl3qdy +CWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aoo8BUjskt/vqgLE+XAe1J3ypcCYmjBNIxqys/PiZGP4/e1ew wNgxuSWQmnTdO+AwNVdZSgtL6i6yUz4kiaiTRlg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgkNKNhPTwwMsHs8iNPJDDmTbnw41klJWeDtjWZLyzW1YOsPGntvKFwOyGWhsSZyW7rwXKxA== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:444e:: with SMTP id l14mr16129888qvt.111.1597708239074; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x13sm20325963qts.23.2020.08.17.16.50.37 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:50:38 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <9750626e-0f38-de3c-f31d-d3e5dd9ee122@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 19:50:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:50:42 -0000 On 8/17/2020 3:18 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Just as a reminder: > > This is one proposal. Others are welcome. If we don’t get others, this will be the one we focus on, as we move forward. The chairs also intend to set a time table very shortly on this. > > Eliot > I've got one coming, but life keeps interrupting the writing.  I hope to have something posted by the end of the week if not sooner. Mike From nobody Mon Aug 17 17:14:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B943A14E1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:14:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=EZTmavZL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=EUVuqWFK Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ONFQH_0Vr_N for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 833873A148F for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C127F5C006E for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:14:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=N7HHY 2v3jXZkiz9c1XMHN0JacKyqq2HxBF7fsS5lTzA=; b=EZTmavZLXn7405UvRXfZT CtuCybLMQ0Oe2T+7JQgAD2dbpkNbYwYOTxmnH513URqZrra1EPiZVd+qee6kpg8n tkz/e1BjxofW+7azBrfwNKfzm+GVHdQbFlxxdAphT0b52ncdhV3vD3pj0f9t9jca D4Ung1V5tdrjCI0iSolzLm875DL9ChrS874LOGbhFgJingnGhPec1NLqnMCJFmjI BxzBOq3MBXd5I2K7/M/4UE2XTqVpzoINTWV994q/uHRM/MH2bLjMepjglR7dOcjK 1umDTYxONV96LHnxZjn4N4+kzyas2TAGam2x8AXdmA1ONI0mQ2W4lg95kLy3YD4G Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=N7HHY2v3jXZkiz9c1XMHN0JacKyqq2HxBF7fsS5lT zA=; b=EUVuqWFKtDIyyGFyU8qLNZhkMfokw/DAN0aqFxqORmNc9UB+FouEPDOD5 lKCPkMHLEmjk2ce41I4ZLKaY1aksd4t0cNXD3pUU1KBFIDobMnZmilMvO3heXWDD r7OsP3wGD50yZTaHYjjXzvURm+nvzdWHfAVdw+BEr4VIMRSrLp9g1fuvpMSz/UKd K16jjowWhk4HZuxR3fImNyk293pVv3U+KBVse/RFhqkS/dBa8JUYqq7/iGGlMeLZ YiVjcHlMhKPVKAZcK71UNBR8i4d8p4MvmX7iLmU3ZKaWPTia1DMQniKFfoUjDLRK NGb6ZH0tb8cApboKUpJ3rdadmbAPw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddthedgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeelgfeufeegkeduue ektdfgleeuheffgedtgfffueelleffgeetveethefhffevnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivght fhdrohhrghdpihgrsgdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5E0F2E00B3; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:14:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-192-gd9d7a78-fm-20200816.001-gd9d7a786 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <2131320d-9511-4986-9f1c-356ddcd6c0d3@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0267bbdb-c636-9e30-8a33-75d1906eb425@gmail.com> References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <0267bbdb-c636-9e30-8a33-75d1906eb425@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:14:21 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:14:48 -0000 I don't have any objection to you copying the text and modifying it to s= uit, or posting a draft that says "like X, but with Y". I think that th= e reason Eliot is asking for something is so that we can have something = written down. That said, we seem to be doing a fine job of getting to the principles a= lready, so as long as that continues, I don't personally need to see muc= h more to understand what is being proposed. It would help if it were m= ore explicit, but I don't need it as much as before. On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, at 06:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Eliot, >=20 > That puts me in a small dilemma. I rather like the *structure* of=20 > Martin's draft and rather disagree with some of its major proposals. >=20 > Would you prefer to see an alternative draft which borrows heavily fro= m=20 > his draft, or continued discussion on the list, or something else? >=20 > Regards > Brian Carpenter >=20 > On 17-Aug-20 19:18, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Just as a reminder: > >=20 > > This is one proposal. Others are welcome. If we don=E2=80=99t get = others, this will be the one we focus on, as we move forward. The chair= s also intend to set a time table very shortly on this. > >=20 > > Eliot > >=20 > >> On 16 Aug 2020, at 06:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> > >> Martin, > >> > >> Thanks for the update. > >> > >> I'm with you up to the end of Section 4. I fully agree that the *ex= ecution* of the production and publication process should continue to be= contracted by the LLC, and oversight of the contract(s) is LLC business= . > >> > >> Then I start to disagree. Certainly, the notion that strategy and e= volution should be done by a community process seems right. Using the IE= TF WG process seems reasonable, but we need some guarantee that all RFC = Streams have a voice in that process, so I think the constitution of thi= s community process must explicitly include a role for each stream. For = clarity, I'm going to call it the RFC Series Advisory Working Group (RSA= WG) from now on. I'd tend to make it a completely open group but with ma= ndatory membership from each stream. > >> > >> The previous RSE several times raised the question whether there sh= ould be an RFC Editor Stream of RFCs. There wouldn't be many such, but i= t would avoid the current "Band-Aid" solution of RFCs about the RFC seri= es coming out as Informational documents from the IAB. So I suggest that= we take the current opportunity for reform to add this missing series. > >> > >> I do not believe that an "IAB Program" is a good basis for the stra= tegy process. I believe it needs to be free-standing, solid in its own r= ight, with equal ties to each entity that produces a document scheme. I = believe we should relieve the IAB of this responsibility. Since the cont= racts will be adjudicated by the LLC, we no longer need the IAB to "appr= ove the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor". Since the = strategy will be set by the new RSAWG, we no longer need the IAB to appr= ove "the general policy followed by the RFC Editor". > >> > >> Since the RFC Series is a public good, the RSAWG does need an ancho= r and a final arbiter, and I believe we should solicit the ISOC Board fo= r that. > >> > >> One place where your model breaks is: > >> > >> "The current process requires that the RFC Series Editor produce an= d maintain this material [the style guide]. This document proposes that = the RFC Series Evolution program become responsible for ownership of thi= s material." > >> > >> I don't see how that works. Firstly, most of the expertise in devel= oping or updating the style guide lies in the RPC. When technical (non-l= inguistic) questions arise, they need to consult the community (in my mo= del, via the RSAWG). However, when linguistic or other publishing-relate= d issues arise, they need expertise that the technical community doesn't= have. > >> > >> What we need, IMNSHO, is fairly clear and hasn't changed much, exce= pt that I would now call this person the RFC Series Advisor. They need e= xpertise and experience in technical publishing. They convene the RSAWG = (but it should have independent chairs). They do development work on the= strategy documents. They bring their expertise to the RSAWG and to the = RPC when needed. They are under a professional services contract with th= e LLC (which is highly unlikely to be full time). > >> > >> I largely agree with what you say about tools development and suppo= rt, except that IMHO the IAB has no necessary role in the picture. > >> > >> Apart from that there is little point in commenting on the later pa= rts of your draft since they are based on a structure I am strongly agai= nst. However, there is one factual error in section 8: > >> > >> "This draft describes a model whereby the RFC Series Advisory Group= and the RFC Series Editorial Board have no future..." > >> > >> The RSEB is the editorial board for the Independent Stream under RF= C8730, so it is completely out of scope here. > >> > >> Regards > >> Brian > >> > >> On 10-Aug-20 14:39, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > >>> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts= directories. > >>> > >>> > >>> Title : A Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publ= ication > >>> Author : Martin Thomson > >>> Filename : draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt > >>> Pages : 16 > >>> Date : 2020-08-09 > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> The finishing process for a document that is approved for public= ation > >>> as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy pro= cess. > >>> The system that executes that process involves a number of diffe= rent > >>> actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the > >>> overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly = is > >>> critical to the mission of the organizations that publish docume= nts > >>> in the RFC series. > >>> > >>> This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to > >>> provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility = for > >>> each of the actors in this system. > >>> > >>> > >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-rfced-model/ > >>> > >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01= > >>> > >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-thomson-rfced-model-01 > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.or= g. > >>> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> I-D-Announce mailing list > >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >>> > >> > >> --=20 > >> Rfced-future mailing list > >> Rfced-future@iab.org > >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > From nobody Mon Aug 17 23:50:13 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC6C3A17BD for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJvi7QuimXXv for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 410753A17BC for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 23:50:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1396; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597733410; x=1598943010; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=aNlpja7vxH07zGf/8MupWZ+LMYET+psuspIvYz4jY14=; b=LJ1apXd/a6k9SyvvgE3zDYLu82I0ow/z8waU6xRQxPyEJhLv9bex29Gr VW2jkv2G3sUEqiJ1OeO7X8KBo8lkbQKsq1mMc9BoZaHIKZJAXCDKY2RH6 UXQkkOhhxHv4J/+RSOh3wwjfR/53b8H3xQotKnKuQSsv4zambRLol98Js 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BMAACweTtf/xbLJq1fGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQEBARIBAQEDAwEBAUCBOQMBAQELAYNtASASLIQ3iQGHfiWKCJIMCwEBAQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BAS8EAQGETAKCPiU3Bg4CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthWiFcQEBAQMBI1YFCws?= =?us-ascii?q?YAgImAgIhNgYTgyaCTAMOIK8ndoEyhVKCbg2CIoEOKgGNN4IAgTgMEIJNPoI?= =?us-ascii?q?agiODFzOCLQS1XlGCbIMLkhaEfwMekWaOO59ijj+DWAIEBgUCFYFpJIFXMxo?= =?us-ascii?q?IGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ2OKxeOJj8DMAI1AgYBCQEBAwmRVAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,326,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="28839628" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Aug 2020 06:50:06 +0000 Received: from [10.61.245.215] ([10.61.245.215]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07I6o5cd022156 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:50:06 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <0267bbdb-c636-9e30-8a33-75d1906eb425@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:50:05 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <0267bbdb-c636-9e30-8a33-75d1906eb425@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.245.215, [10.61.245.215] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:50:12 -0000 Brian, > On 17 Aug 2020, at 22:48, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Eliot, >=20 > That puts me in a small dilemma. I rather like the *structure* of = Martin's draft and rather disagree with some of its major proposals. >=20 > Would you prefer to see an alternative draft which borrows heavily = from his draft, or continued discussion on the list, or something else? Given that there are different schools of thought as to what people = would like, I would expect to see alternative drafts. As a matter of = practicality, if we start from one draft from one perspective, then it = is a safe assumption that much of that draft will find its way to the = final product. If that is what people would like, then one draft it is, = and we can issue track from there. If we see multiple drafts, then we = have text to take from both to establish common ground. If you or anyone else would like to write a draft, then borrowing from = Martin=E2=80=99s well laid out structure is fine, but certainly not = required. What is important is the motivation behind what is being = proposed, selection, accountability, and transparency mechanisms that = are expected. =20 The chairs do not wish this process to drag on. The time to write is = now. You can expect to see a proposed timeline from us on this matter = Real Soon Now. Eliot From nobody Tue Aug 18 16:45:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841A33A0F5E for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:45:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, EMPTY_MESSAGE=2.32, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHE3UCw5B2vc for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x244.google.com (mail-lj1-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 607D43A0F5D for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x244.google.com with SMTP id v12so23352466ljc.10 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:45:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=OcWC5i+dN1kjmdonmcbYCyy0cBgMoGCgtriCW+N9c1U=; b=nU0PnUSc70dJTZM79OhiOnUFhSZt0SMDGcOMXWRV1wwtblYsGC7mLnZ5NnkNYGYLA0 3uFsQHGYlJmtMbQwC9yWOXAliHHO/dp3Fm6U/bF25UZLlosUTPei4HTczG+4+JjBqhAj 1K/pY/JaqtD4C+s1rouvLR65yxsNWe86ihGe2rEMsH4lsksEWiWj1cSD53TeMLuVRym7 vO5XKn/aBJb5hhXGdSM1i9ERmpk9y360twgFVUTGBk5py8dCeEBQvdPiHT3hF18QKT1W 6I6tyqwAGk5LpTnGNd6YYFr7LKtM8qB8ECYW5bIlS3tr5JcMLXwYlCReSWf2SkCVMW4z XRAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=OcWC5i+dN1kjmdonmcbYCyy0cBgMoGCgtriCW+N9c1U=; b=c6YBgzNywRBnZNxzm7rK2VWQ2wKbSvBhs5JOaibTbnvgMXpepIUA/nsddkPZUoy7W9 i5S39YnK65B3SqB/wGWYaWUM3Gh+t8U8igPJkUgO8HDLWweU1/bPKBOOa+nEs8VSGnuv +UgL3XYuZZL94riJJAFp5TfksLj5lYErDDfDtYq+yPf/y1Z/noEXXtWbfKtiJ7gYdMxq wjrT60UMHju0shn429wjMcHDPMhdf73sti7kvHSRFVYhBdzsW6caVgny2xX+0h7XlbYb dQL4MKP9P4ZCKiE2cQshS+kLgJhRWNQrlva6WEUsj/QeRDjDbZhWRdR2+4I858PuNhvk JnRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531T28gvuP+xaN+3NcK+nfy65Gfqog1vttjDKTxNB9hD5yrSl8eu IgWVm0tGHeQkDaswVgXywwryzpmqtpUGj52au3JuubiN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdCYMEk5SoVOUAUSRXxKV/l2/YnJkAWAggFk0gbO9YV95QIP+ncv+CoLdpdVbpGVbf0Chvt29VU7Q+/bBPeCY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:155:: with SMTP id c21mr11390152ljd.453.1597794340929; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:45:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: =?UTF-8?B?4Lil4LmN4Liy4LmD4LiiIOC4nuC4o+C4oeC4oeC4teC5gOC4lOC4ig==?= Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:45:10 +0700 Message-ID: To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d86d305ad2f7c9d" Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 23:45:45 -0000 --0000000000001d86d305ad2f7c9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" --0000000000001d86d305ad2f7c9d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
--0000000000001d86d305ad2f7c9d-- From nobody Wed Aug 19 15:51:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D033A0ECE for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wkRscM_82Hj for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0127B3A0EC7 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id h19so58180ljg.13 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:51:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Uq2JWWomMvjVkgSrz8B3NckyGmPX2foy7q7OXqfmhlM=; b=FpopDw5kMssfpJb2vjc6InMFpI5s4FlUa3Kf2aEbPTajGHDLPtBYOGhDxuoUOthjjS Fv3z3viDmV828DUtL0z3hYA4cZcVXMSfF1mplzZN8Nfn+uQa1+ksiPWXP8Rur6XmDk0J PTJ+5ZSbbhZt39hS4iK7Szhk0Q1XZTNjU7N4GFfuZoYI+FwpevsYnH19xhNghJvlIKMS NftCq996VbMV79AV4cMyLjig3kw8alYsNuitVTl3sUJ+Gedwq4h71MQgDg8hHVUIkVQN pjoc/R3gGvk2O4sLkvtOS7VnnVmL7VFJWU80UlhyABDH2w2fRQyI4MsfCt5qOcr9tByp KsoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Uq2JWWomMvjVkgSrz8B3NckyGmPX2foy7q7OXqfmhlM=; b=jPQ4D0GxRA5LDz8Lt8boCCVR2qRq1GIdNzZY2mkzCyKcU/OXD2cv6D2QvcqJ3FikwW 59NGCZcueTVAR6c5igtU05wSJU76umL/aj39l75tzZHLAfVH7yS7XnLzElI6rSHIY4AO HkSC2pIffWO6pOAG7ABZMa4YRPeM45SmmQmzTl9KwgEsivtTozL4NYtuu5nZU4xyzdgl XTQICrLOBkrp98uvbI76nbxhXN5lCcsj3RbwIHBlNzzV9QM8F2SsdlXSoeC+gosoGaKM FcBXK22y07XdhZ3h9K0lo8GkrLOIohrjlYWZIaIDRXi8bW99NqWDywr/As/26soRdltH rv+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532zKTEu2BYcjsQg+gQoJN1Z1SR5/OVwe/dXPERUflt47Fa004tE VNuqQm7NYP1iDfCCBxXcKmbvhM9AIPNVhkqSM/MasNh0fPw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyEXSlbn/ZhTJHsS7i1ceJNPzBZiqw4ijTc56wMvQ5cnbGYlWXwQCLaLmIdoDl+JfronIIMFwiJIuRhzdfKo5k= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e95:: with SMTP id z21mr202411ljk.143.1597877484424; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?4Lil4LmN4Liy4LmD4LiiIOC4nuC4o+C4oeC4oeC4teC5gOC4lOC4ig==?= Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 05:51:12 +0700 Message-ID: To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da938905ad42d7fa" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Rfced-future Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 22:51:29 -0000 --000000000000da938905ad42d7fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E0=B9=83=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=A7=E0=B8=B1=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=97=E0=B8=B5=E0=B9=88 = =E0=B8=9E=E0=B8=A4. 20 =E0=B8=AA.=E0=B8=84. 2020 =E0=B9=80=E0=B8=A7=E0=B8= =A5=E0=B8=B2 02:00 =E0=B9=80=E0=B8=82=E0=B8=B5=E0=B8=A2=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=A7=E0=B9=88=E0=B8=B2: > Send Rfced-future mailing list submissions to > rfced-future@iab.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > rfced-future-request@iab.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rfced-future-owner@iab.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Rfced-future digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. (no subject) (????? ????????) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "=E0=B8=A5=E0=B9=8D=E0=B8=B2=E0=B9=83=E0=B8=A2 =E0=B8=9E=E0=B8=A3= =E0=B8=A1=E0=B8=A1=E0=B8=B5=E0=B9=80=E0=B8=94=E0=B8=8A" > To: rfced-future@iab.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:45:10 +0700 > Subject: [Rfced-future] (no subject) > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000da938905ad42d7fa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=E0=B9=83=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=A7=E0=B8=B1=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=97= =E0=B8=B5=E0=B9=88 =E0=B8=9E=E0=B8=A4. 20 =E0=B8=AA.=E0=B8=84. 2020 =E0=B9= =80=E0=B8=A7=E0=B8=A5=E0=B8=B2 02:00 <rfced-future-request@iab.org> =E0=B9=80=E0=B8=82=E0=B8= =B5=E0=B8=A2=E0=B8=99=E0=B8=A7=E0=B9=88=E0=B8=B2:
Send Rfced-future mailing list submission= s to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 rfced-future@iab.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.iab.org/mai= lman/listinfo/rfced-future
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 rfced-future-request@iab.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 rfced-future-owner@iab.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Rfced-future digest..."
Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. (no subject) (????? ????????)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0"=E0= =B8=A5=E0=B9=8D=E0=B8=B2=E0=B9=83=E0=B8=A2 =E0=B8=9E=E0=B8=A3=E0=B8=A1=E0= =B8=A1=E0=B8=B5=E0=B9=80=E0=B8=94=E0=B8=8A" <lamyaiy76@gmail.com>
To:=C2=A0= rfced-future@iab.= org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:45:10 = +0700
Subject:=C2=A0[Rfced-future] (no subject)
--000000000000da938905ad42d7fa-- From nobody Thu Aug 20 20:49:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727E23A1811 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id faMP81GByrIY for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19A03A109B for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id j13so239189pjd.4 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nH5JG0dlS0gEMmlbOvDmi2mWbUYhx8g+YjlMCw0UrnI=; b=RDB1TK+GsTDszrZ6ZDuGoHZHbqxFq28CU6thQYfRGUQFLFh+McdaYjo5XBFpYQwyXw 4qkWvVAVyG/cNkjoaSdai/2FRS2cXr3TF3Ew/50rUokCiSLd24dISqqBUaWePFdEVXAc NcDx1MWEtWWeoIyl8n6VAZggJzaM2JaDFwfQzdWr8MWBJfdzfAKc9PC/iKRcTBWYDLLn VPX23/Ae1+N7BotYlw21GkFsv33bXG8Ya9g8vxsqvSgOzWfqtdO5FBj3atJzeBsgs2ES 7wV7DyAKHww6njLZUNForZsPEv0Nflycro+IENrnP/lH00TM2dB2C31imcu/DzuAUO/p +dVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nH5JG0dlS0gEMmlbOvDmi2mWbUYhx8g+YjlMCw0UrnI=; b=OQ2dWmpU/0CXzBxiN+34l0EVEJWneGiK93yi6745/rckc+MYUDLKohyBi1wBf/joNs 0+tyGbgOGTGJ/cwYpgpCO9qBS8NllxuzRqjjXvfXcsO3VbLPlS6IvtNfNgHYYgQnZH2c +ch4XE47i0I0pWVvgx3Gh33+C4DqE2MVHsUUz9xgSO/OklbygKfUShwUqG3lEpMJGCnr 7B3A+qV2ytc5EJ56CXvGpuADGUgfygXDiMwzJkSDIIcROql7stJDRtI9KLQR+I4xVkcV 5ISODxZmIujKLTmWsgsxiPWpEva/MEDy2bggTjr7XPNHlWXlV2r7/+GiC6UvxDf89nL7 p4lA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331HdvyWxb0vCdtpuFSim4eXSTpSQdRRDm+CRlmL9hDp0N/pCjj qMNJm8i7Cn+orcBzjpiRX8eiB0XBj5IbTw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/mXfdX47E5YmyFcDe/6NFV09kbeAKYXno/FuHkDC3cH4GTpZ+o83rpo4mPcViPIwRlyCOag== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7401:: with SMTP id g1mr794981pll.137.1597981764315; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a7sm621565pfd.194.2020.08.20.20.49.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:49:23 -0700 (PDT) References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Brian E Carpenter X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:49:21 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0000 Here's my suggested RFC Editor model for the future. For reasons that escape me, it didn't emerge in v3 format, but apart from that it has much the same structure as draft-thomson-rfced-model-01 and (with permission) much of the same text. I have put the v3 html version at https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.html The main differences from Martin's draft are: a) There is a free-standing open RFC Series Advisory WG, under ISOC auspices. b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no line management duties. c) No IAB program is needed. All comments welcome, of course. Regards Brian Carpenter -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:30:42 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Alternative Proposed Model for RFC Editing and Publication Author : Brian E. Carpenter Filename : draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2020-08-20 Abstract: The finishing process for a document that is approved for publication as an RFC currently involves a somewhat detailed and lengthy process. The system that executes that process involves a number of different actors, each bringing competency with different aspects of the overall process. Ensuring that this process functions smoothly is critical to the mission of the organizations that publish documents in the RFC series. This document proposes a framework for that system that aims to provide clear delineations of accountability and responsibility for each of the actors in this system. It would require significant updates to RFC 8728 and RFC 8729, and minor updates to RFC 2850 and RFC 7841. Discussion of this document takes place on the RFC Editor Futures mailing list (rfced-future@iab.org). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-rfced-model/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From nobody Thu Aug 20 22:56:21 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4729D3A1873 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:56:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNKHCXdrfMfF for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F1D3A1872 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BXrNp4GxlzyxM; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:56:10 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619682170.114089-dda8863e799990aa5267d9f701610c1e Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 05:56:18 -0000 On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no line = management duties. As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this is = good. I=E2=80=99m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior = professional that wants to be that RSA. E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the RSA = would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just setting = sane publishing policy. That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community = consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can=E2=80=99t imagine I = would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Thu Aug 20 23:08:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116303A187F for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uUk8rogTymyv for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B56103A187E for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BXrfv6SdhzyTY; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:08:23 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <10D4848D-7580-4B87-952F-5942CCA6B39A@mnot.net> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:08:23 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619682903.227656-b978a22eb5b5c75f55c69608922dd3ea Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159702718090.11663.7570202119633420369@ietfa.amsl.com> <18b04242-0867-4abc-ac9d-7dc7875675e2@www.fastmail.com> <10D4848D-7580-4B87-952F-5942CCA6B39A@mnot.net> To: Mark Nottingham X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-thomson-rfced-model-01.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:08:28 -0000 >>> 1. Is the role of the Advisor both prominent and well-understood = enough to enshrine it in the structure of this body? >>> 2. Should the role of the Advisor be conflated with the leadership = of this body? >>=20 >> Academia is a background where we know that having the right person = on a position can be crucial (we give out lifetime tenures!). So maybe = I=E2=80=99m biased. >=20 > How often is tenure given to someone who then doesn't use that = privilege well? I have anecdotes from friends and family who are in = academia, it'd be interesting to compare notes. Well, I=E2=80=99m not suggesting we copy the tenure model here. I was just using it to explain my bias towards finding and engaging = excellent people. But, to answer the question: In my university, surprisingly less = frequent than one would think. That requires doing the tenure process = right (the question is not just =E2=80=9Care all the bibliometrics = indicators just right=E2=80=9D, but also =E2=80=9Cis this a person that = we could live with for the next couple decades=E2=80=9D). Since the = people who are steering the tenure process mostly have been through it = themselves, this is a bit of a self-sustaining virtuous cycle (or can be = a vicious cycle =E2=80=93 I=E2=80=99ve seen that as well). It is one of = the finer points of running a university to supply just the right amount = of correcting nudges to the process... >> Re 1: Yes, I think that =E2=80=9CAdvisor" (if that is the new word = for the RSE) should have a prominent role. (Whether it is = well-understood yet, I don=E2=80=99t know.) >=20 > Why? To get someone from the publishing world that can (and is motivated to) = help us. >> Re 2: This is one of the questions that reminds one of a saying that = unfortunately involves domestic violence. >=20 > Sorry, I don't understand. Well, let=E2=80=99s just say that was a leading question. >> I do believe that we will find better =E2=80=9CAdvisors=E2=80=9D if = that is a leadership role. >=20 > Why? See my other message today. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Fri Aug 21 09:36:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358513A0D00 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5JsH28Z368s for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AFCF3A0CE7 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id t4so1929408iln.1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Tsr8oyEYQRBLkcGR3WNwFj4BXsW5UWcs3zqd8fr9MKY=; b=0Ta9jlMdq27MYH5dgMNPZDXM+JFKneeA8jEiy6qonlUoKlO26Q3ak6tV4uLsK+5ZZO rAh6gtEdS2wSRxg6a0hlXdpNlcSzJfEGrQaR+6VRejmadMR7NyOTy0DoThw+ht4O3M70 +8RThwlwtQx4mT6cJ8l7LpOU32brq2qUCxBQGNyCMK48PfUU0GQBsagbQnyl9QR1u7px 2ODLQqT7IxX3PJMBpuDtaM67aIcjywn1qwZBAA1O4zPzMyNgpnoP1rdqDVK48f0z+y7c I5YaCV+W3puLfBubZ6lzPRm6/1V9gZ3AiTDdObLoqbQPoDpxjO5YJp265lrY9u5bWoze RIkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Tsr8oyEYQRBLkcGR3WNwFj4BXsW5UWcs3zqd8fr9MKY=; b=FV1DBjpXTh+1O7dOYKynFrrJvZdAvhmbkp8pCZlDHrcq+344joQ9MFos2knFCYSZZQ 0F6XVOYDruBFEHgjY85xyP/aE4m19M4xl9VMVo9us++4UXl79hE2A4Unn6ZNCZzS9la9 WUi02Dkd9zrE60vcQ1Mfp4DxhETRI20ZvNgPj7Lr611yuEhLLl6HDreju288sPjp+gZb 6YeUJwA8wEFNIwTIoFCcL25ruMYicNqd1k+wZv1H8JSxR0L2Ae7dXaR3Y6FwKsSb+H/b ysd6ngzrphfzbuZaBUu9PPi0MGfh58YzYuKDtnxG+5KGuWnOWAqXHtkciF2E+RePqnL0 vqKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530af3dTsOwe8G0ZhvCkzy0XPj3KkA6oYEvpBmeVEjgmxLBu5s0Q 3zN8mI1QoI317GKeZM2KcCUqLA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyfYy3ZP/wkwyuqhXQvjYjDfEdLWUDyfmFljx9O0cdA85wgmpw97WudQitd1olW89R2vHKTJQ== X-Received: by 2002:a92:1510:: with SMTP id v16mr3282907ilk.241.1598027787191; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 202sm1496026ila.59.2020.08.21.09.36.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Brian Rosen In-Reply-To: <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:36:20 -0400 Cc: Brian E Carpenter , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <22A563FF-4DDF-491A-A1DB-DEEFB37C6A85@brianrosen.net> References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:36:30 -0000 Thanks Martin and Brian.=20 Others, please have initial proposals out by end of next week. Then we = will schedule interims to discuss. Brian and Eliot > On Aug 21, 2020, at 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>=20 >> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no line = management duties. >=20 > As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this is = good. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior = professional that wants to be that RSA. >=20 > E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the RSA = would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just setting = sane publishing policy. > That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community = consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can=E2=80=99t imagine I = would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Fri Aug 21 10:44:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110753A0E9D for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vbfiI_-BxwiT for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD123A0EBC for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id 144so2071013qkl.5 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=P55vTxvsemaIjKlxJ6OHzj6gsJuEMPmZo1XBqHgFyi0=; b=BXEQQaYXlaf8ujuaqWAqKuCooKG8haUNExuhNlnR20AM2GYIwCtuj5KVqTtzBfGIEk xv50mmysdLYltMFxMkr2INQbVgKIBc10HQ8AfSrEuchRKpvGEDNlZ6JAIjl4zlnEfVaf v8nUBIyRSr07XrR6i285DlG2zMVAgpDrLDyEXjKvG0U9of9VgDW+vU7WemoBQLBR+++1 r+LOupfq9Zhsxq4vAiS/K8C6KyeoT4mh1nEe8trwzHD70OxtiHzUzSrSXC2fcNnXNS5E x67Vo3E4u/6sReYsM6vbjHe1ImwT2WNNJArQsQLyEsZXHcVzt5Z9R0dc8DLN9V6vyVcA nmdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=P55vTxvsemaIjKlxJ6OHzj6gsJuEMPmZo1XBqHgFyi0=; b=BsB0Ulo+7Iwrwrbfv99w/uXQrze9gqzR7u8xqAzFbJcNy98ocNQSpU3MQ1oThq4w0n wwPFMWAGN6ke/eX1l5IKUerIV7Yotl6dOIQQrXoZrhG7qIo2h4x3sSHU9I5wDWnrzxwd 4U1fBER3TKVSwaDVvfrnsehIXy91RoRszJCKKevIXpz5OhdrRhqQUFCs08LyWXyZrEM2 oy15sWNc46SORC3fwsrjhbdgz2oejHdbJosDj3V3Ve7BPT6I0isVA9qKEi1MK2WPBRDp v81WWKdb+V7ldcwN/9Jaw6dga/ET4rNO5n5HGovMYiE5k5bZhE5hitVVNTVSQa4L5iTY ZP2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tmaAhTq7Bz6owsiyz6wUUM5B4hSUYWjWfzTgmO6fCtpTZy4/2 8CyD0hyt1p2k9k+MmA/kgeUPKvKgbnoYx01+x1U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyL5+W3Y4hv0T3M8pDdQllGjIEw8bDGa6H/RBr26CzJWZ+TiinnoFFudoToA+h8wdoMEO/2Ug== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:545:: with SMTP id o5mr3625878qko.187.1598031844470; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d16sm2231040qkk.106.2020.08.21.10.44.03 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:44:02 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:44:07 -0000 On 8/21/2020 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no line management duties. > As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this is good. Hi Carsten - can you clarify the above was what you meant?  I'm asking because there appears to be a disconnect between that statement and what follows. > > I’m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior professional that wants to be that RSA. > > E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the RSA would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just setting sane publishing policy. > That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can’t imagine I would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. Nor I, nor any senior person with a lick of self-esteem. Later, Mike > Grüße, Carsten > From nobody Fri Aug 21 10:49:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644623A0F3E for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mE7m3L46LStU for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289FE3A0F51 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BY8Ct5sC1zyg2; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:49:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:49:30 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619724969.993593-b540b23dde479e74861b561f5ac920c9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:49:36 -0000 Hi Michael, > On 2020-08-21, at 19:44, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > On 8/21/2020 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no = line management duties. >> As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this = is good. > Hi Carsten - can you clarify the above was what you meant? I'm asking = because there appears to be a disconnect between that statement and what = follows. I=E2=80=99m assuming the line management is less of an issue than the = ability to simply make decisions. (Or what is the disconnect you are = seeing?) >> I=E2=80=99m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior = professional that wants to be that RSA. >>=20 >> E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the = RSA would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just = setting sane publishing policy. >> That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community = consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can=E2=80=99t imagine I = would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. >=20 > Nor I, nor any senior person with a lick of self-esteem. So I=E2=80=99m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that is = the right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that = advisor, with a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Fri Aug 21 10:55:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6C33A0F99 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiQjTSneWd5v for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2A473A0F95 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id v22so1798529qtq.8 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=x2M6RoPpPThFg3/n3/e+s09eq9gZpFdGy5w0oUZERag=; b=axuuaFbFs4X3DXSwoqVYMtk57UWlJbdu+q/3m4r+FKafbgRIONIoFZxuNRganrLSzE 0CtyncYnrKlc9wMSZuAzFXMw4E6igG9GomJqndAO4qVtac2Xzvf/PQ1Nl3XHgRWOe8cc IJBJX+CS4eL2E9pywRmqiwd923V269K1UZNxAlToDhJZB8FZcpruxNtf0+0OSijBfhdE 2QovmXAbm+y6uqftxbwx7DdEoU6ytGiz3U2CGjhz3OR6GzVUGeq9lPDO28WUIA8UjhcS ft1k9pdr8jM9YJpjJBoSz86BvD9UsfLfpKvR4IxaX1h8QiZ0iOHFC7yaQoJKX/CuUSvM ji3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=x2M6RoPpPThFg3/n3/e+s09eq9gZpFdGy5w0oUZERag=; b=d3jcY+L3CLyoiB64B3vokldW05NddeWyCAgDq11wQFy8EfZM8UH295rbfVtCdSUH5K nGWxsPKv56TFLICg53cPOTZHT7+pRr0xh9o+qRYIMnOJj8OU3oqjGlpUvqvzXBTAvuL+ YVJcPxoPgxM9FeNw4BE50SU4A9hNQOStMMgoyW5XkpdpmialY+ZQd4E4ecmBSZDrl5Dz s9MFZGOz9TFeqK+GrLY4X3MiVap7PNAalfuKUG/3Rsnln2nfwAGxVISMb0AyPcFujdOQ jhszQTHwl+etVBcMEgg24wkPrrU07OVAoBIuEBXntCNGWMS0yDBosFLs++piI+QKwe3F 8Vhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530l5R+oDZMdoYgEnW5JY0PFgPhOYVQaajh7MW7aid8zbwo3XX2H wy/+G1URm2sReiGVmmG2gDeM8Qp+VpN3w6qRUpY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9lpMIpUo4LGRwOfD7BAzFNFXqBnukacWf1idJbdNyykbKSsoQB2t9a+zssN4ckaj4TEhSNA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c8d:: with SMTP id y13mr3741682qtv.387.1598032503303; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x7sm2213541qkn.53.2020.08.21.10.55.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:55:01 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:55:07 -0000 On 8/21/2020 1:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> On 2020-08-21, at 19:44, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> On 8/21/2020 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no line management duties. >>> As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this is good. >> Hi Carsten - can you clarify the above was what you meant? I'm asking because there appears to be a disconnect between that statement and what follows. > I’m assuming the line management is less of an issue than the ability to simply make decisions. (Or what is the disconnect you are seeing?) You seemed to say "I think its good that the RSA has no line management responsibilities, but that I can't imaging finding any RSA who would enjoy that job."    It's possible I was conflating "line management" as being the opposite of a "strict advisor" role with no "ability to simply make decisions" instead of the middle ground I get from your above sentence.    Below clarifies this and matches up with what I thought you were getting at. Thanks - Mike > >>> I’m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior professional that wants to be that RSA. >>> >>> E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the RSA would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just setting sane publishing policy. >>> That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can’t imagine I would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. >> Nor I, nor any senior person with a lick of self-esteem. > So I’m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that is the right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that advisor, with a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process. > > Grüße, Carsten > From nobody Sat Aug 22 01:25:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580843A1081 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 01:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEE0RfmFPn77 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 01:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63F003A1080 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 01:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7215600992689ea3f404b90.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e721:5600:9926:89ea:3f40:4b90]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1k9Opz-00026f-LO; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 10:25:19 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 10:25:18 +0200 Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598084725;b904819b; X-HE-SMSGID: 1k9Opz-00026f-LO Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 08:25:27 -0000 Hi Carsten, One quick question below. > On 21. Aug 2020, at 19:49, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > Hi Michael, >=20 >> On 2020-08-21, at 19:44, Michael StJohns = wrote: >>=20 >> On 8/21/2020 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no = line management duties. >>> As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this = is good. >> Hi Carsten - can you clarify the above was what you meant? I'm = asking because there appears to be a disconnect between that statement = and what follows. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m assuming the line management is less of an issue than the = ability to simply make decisions. (Or what is the disconnect you are = seeing?) >=20 >>> I=E2=80=99m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior = professional that wants to be that RSA. >>>=20 >>> E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the = RSA would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just = setting sane publishing policy. >>> That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community = consensus about such a piece of policy, but I can=E2=80=99t imagine I = would have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. >>=20 >> Nor I, nor any senior person with a lick of self-esteem. >=20 > So I=E2=80=99m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that = is the right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that = advisor, with a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process. I can see why the person in the advisor role would want to take decision = with consultation only or how it can be hard to find someone who is = expert in the publishing domain but also understands our usually = consensus process, however, I don=E2=80=99t really understand why we as = a community would want that. I think it would be good for strategic = decisions to have someone who can declare consensus (that would be the = chairs or could eventually be also someone noncom selected) and then = also a real advisor role who brings in expertise but doesn=E2=80=99t = need to carry the responsibility. I believe it was an interesting = experience for our last RSE to get to know our community and I can image = it might also be something interesting for an advisor role. Or what kind = of decisions are we actually taking about if it is not daily = business/line manager decisions but maybe you also don=E2=80=99t mean = strategic decisions? Mirja >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Sat Aug 22 14:11:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4123E3A0FAF for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0hoGJKV6-ek for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F184C3A0FAE for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id m34so2649234pgl.11 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=icYosRDjTRwWGF5BCoTEu4u9zEyJ4oFpvQ8e/9cxq3g=; b=lqFsgjZHvQcTy+MM+85kiR95dbpO2W4OGaWChotX0dGJS5zU2fju38w3/acm1IaLIe S8u5soS/w8T7JtHmh3i2m+4FB6i3slE8ycdOT31WOqNwGk3U4XYCA/nukjP5Q9xKXcJo O0E7etWWpXQmUQ5G3/D8O77t/bJdyp4h7e8kc6SpZPkAfXoU9DZ/ZCgABjjQ7eO3QbYU yueDlptLH+gr85F78uDFKjY/r0Wx27sNCztm04I+rmfmwL0r9QNvwb6OoKYSqPdBgQxv qQG1RsoolVjNVIc2zPlW2q24XIlUcYpM/AqA2dKM6meotxytHeEpe+V6jT9viYe1DO0f RL0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=icYosRDjTRwWGF5BCoTEu4u9zEyJ4oFpvQ8e/9cxq3g=; b=UF1surPEVKUcDOywV+n8b3Ew3IVmqJ10RFS9zNhqOBRO0GubkaauVKsKR0sIDYa2eX fwYXYmcdGhpM2FLh/dEihqbAYGLs8F3mIjdAUHRoebLK0tnS5QHOq+r4SLr9tQ0pkDO7 nHUqUVYqaPzYEEzeFl/qqrNIpXyTvioULkRhDmdKsyYnSOGWbgcHL9ZdnHxvsavSr1Ee 3RWuz3U+TfoHHFzk5XdrYm2x7v8aooVSMokucU5oIE2kGb0aCyZWUAu52As93afyOlwk fEwBLTbOSZUj3n7npzsL83kGYNHc6DH8ygGWs0Tjq+jdkt5gan0KgQWXGYkAJAKdjgvf 9oHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531t6wxZjquBjcws6zFf5jGxPHlZzcQEQ03VsItnDrNS5U9B91MX arBW709wM/VywG7knEy7ftg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3wVtYdsuIlDlRpLkMyipH2eHP1heA0ax5N7t9naAIQ+95kccd3K6A+dLQdfDHofQoyenTAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1d23:: with SMTP id d35mr6046344pgd.291.1598130713267; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm5311506pgh.93.2020.08.22.14.11.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:11:52 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:11:49 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:11:56 -0000 On 22-Aug-20 20:25, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Carsten, >=20 > One quick question below. >=20 >> On 21. Aug 2020, at 19:49, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >>> On 2020-08-21, at 19:44, Michael StJohns wro= te: >>> >>> On 8/21/2020 1:56 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>> On 2020-08-21, at 05:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>> b) There is a senior professional RFC Series Advisor, who has no li= ne management duties. >>>> As should be obvious from my previous statements, I think that this = is good. >>> Hi Carsten - can you clarify the above was what you meant? I'm askin= g because there appears to be a disconnect between that statement and wha= t follows. >> >> I=E2=80=99m assuming the line management is less of an issue than the = ability to simply make decisions. (Or what is the disconnect you are see= ing?) >> >>>> I=E2=80=99m still having a hard time imagining finding the senior pr= ofessional that wants to be that RSA. >>>> >>>> E.g., in the equivalent of the most recent ietf.org kerfuffle, the R= SA would have needed to deal with an unruly RSAWG instead of just setting= sane publishing policy. >>>> That is of course good in the sense of understanding the community c= onsensus about such a piece of policy, but I can=E2=80=99t imagine I woul= d have wanted to have had the job of the adult in the room. >>> >>> Nor I, nor any senior person with a lick of self-esteem. >> >> So I=E2=80=99m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that = is the right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that advi= sor, with a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process. >=20 > I can see why the person in the advisor role would want to take decisio= n with consultation only or how it can be hard to find someone who is exp= ert in the publishing domain but also understands our usually consensus p= rocess, however, I don=E2=80=99t really understand why we as a community = would want that. I think it would be good for strategic decisions to have= someone who can declare consensus (that would be the chairs or could eve= ntually be also someone noncom selected) and then also a real advisor rol= e who brings in expertise but doesn=E2=80=99t need to carry the responsib= ility. I believe it was an interesting experience for our last RSE to get= to know our community and I can image it might also be something interes= ting for an advisor role. Or what kind of decisions are we actually takin= g about if it is not daily business/line manager decisions but maybe you = also don=E2=80=99t mean strategic decisions? Right. In my model the Advisor doesn't take decisions; the Advisory WG ta= kes decisions by our very own rough consensus process. The Advisor gives = advice. Brian From nobody Sat Aug 22 14:26:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6994E3A0FC1 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:26:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id teoIXuUcsi1M for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960063A0FBF for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BYs0C49HnzyYL; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 23:26:51 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 23:26:51 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619824411.090881-cf0659d40d5ce254a1ba1ad0fb5b6e43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> To: Mirja Kuehlewind X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:26:56 -0000 Hi Mirja, > On 2020-08-22, at 10:25, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t really understand why we as a community would want = that. There are many angles of thought that lead to the same conclusion, and I = can only hope to touch the surface in an email. Note that I=E2=80=99m going to trample on some popular myths here, so = please excuse me if you (collective you) get a bit excited when reading = this. (1) The myth of rough consensus and running code. That mantra is definitely the foundational myth of the IETF, and I=E2=80=99= m not setting out to destroy it here. But we should be wary of its = applicability and its limitations. (1a) Rough consensus works because we have a meritocracy, not a = democracy. We give leadership positions to people from within the = community that we have observed for a while and who we think know their = part about technology and technology management and what works and what = doesn=E2=80=99t. This is *not* perfect, but it is working reasonably = well to sustain a more-than-third-of-a-century self-governing body. = (There are also some checks and balances needed to make this work.) (1b) We can=E2=80=99t recruit the leadership we need for a publishing = strategy out of the IETF and its usual meritocracy process. It is great = that we have a few people who do have some background here, but in the = end we are all armchair pilots when it comes to publishing. (1c) A corollary: The subjects of our decisions usually involve = technology. There is a cold, hard requirement that =E2=80=9CIt Has To = Work=E2=80=9D (RFC 1925), and there are indicators and metrics we can = use beyond that. So whatever follies and unhealthy fashions we succumb = to, are ultimately shot down by reality. That is much worse on the = publishing side. What indicators do we use there? Number of RFCs sold? = See also (3). (1d) Group-Think. I=E2=80=99m old enough to have been in dozens of = meetings where a course of action seemed inevitable and we talked = ourselves into a consensus to go forward even though many people knew = intuitively that this was the wrong way forward (often actually = catastrophically so). While individuals are fallible as well, setting = someone up to be a counterpoint, with the power to prevent, is often a = good idea. (Actually, the role we culture for ADs in the document = approval process is just that, and, yes, that can also be annoying.) (1e) Incentives for disturbing the process. A consultation cannot be = hijacked as well as a consensus process. Setting up the system so it is = less prone to hijacking saves a lot of effort, including on the side of = the potential hijackers. (2) The myth of direct vs. representative democracy. The IETF is not run as a democracy, so the analogies are limited. =20 They are still rather relevant. We have a couple millenniums of experience with various forms of = governance. We know that direct democracy is vulnerable to fashions (well, any = democracy is, direct is just less moderated). Understanding the 2014 = Swiss immigration initiative, Brexit, or even the strong popular vote = for a US president in 2016 is beyond this little missive. But clearly, = the IETF would be rather prone to engineer its little Brexit on the RFC = series based on a fleeting fashion and some ideas that sound good in a = 5-paragraph email message but don=E2=80=99t survive reality (or even = thorough thinking). (Insert my usual reference to the fallacy of = =E2=80=9Cprocess confabulation=E2=80=9D here as well.) (3) The value proposition (a.k.a the myth of =E2=80=9Clet=E2=80=99s put = it up on github and be done=E2=80=9D). We need to work on the reputation of the RFC series. This is, of = course, heavily linked to the reputation of its main stream, the IETF = stream, and thus the IETF, which is outside the scope of this = discussion. On the reputational side, mistakes linger. (I=E2=80=99m at a university = that was a late child of the 1968s movement, and even though the = unfortunate parts of that heritage were mostly overcome in the 1980s, = people out there still think everybody here is a red sock.) That is a = perspective that is somewhat foreign to technologists, where a new sow = is run through the village (please excuse my German) every three years. = (Yes, we do need to help run the Internet, but the merit of that is less = reliant on its reputation than on what it actually can do.) I could go on and on. Axiom: The RFC series is an asset that took 50 years to build. Let=E2=80=99s not squander it. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat Aug 22 14:57:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C053A0FD6 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5BlNWAbwGqRN for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D9D53A0FD5 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id m71so2862916pfd.1 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sIlj58RdPHmcorsdsaabpeEgyKhBrKhgLJme5aVB6Fs=; b=Z4zQzwV0dORtVOcOMedYIWxQavlYJXLlTkHqEwj45FVfTuIAmXy/AWNgJ4oWBUzacE GZfU/zbiV2fSjONAkbgt2dcPuoJnOWxhMQKYqwxPSC50bj/OSmghYvkI4mJztKI4V8ls emyIqm4EfxvMzxq8Xue9Ziy88DFO3sez+oI3av84UTlrIMbwcb5p1cT9cZQ5mjtVmEki A5RLeI0YGcMmOWfDtlGanFbLww8q0IvW4HIo3ebdvTsxU1dHVdbUwEQYqoyjtcUE1RrV 8Z1gfFZSb9kNDPXmja/wWYs7+6mPVKedMwp8NgQzw+j3ud9oDooZL5rUoZHvcHRulzn4 KRfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sIlj58RdPHmcorsdsaabpeEgyKhBrKhgLJme5aVB6Fs=; b=sAON4YjRT94amzy3yyq+7bZWycWfVgYCwE1ocdl5zc/pVCr5+TL8bcPiJGe/0m5w4w S+QXTFUyICEpHCHqdidKSb8UUHXJI4is23tHWHZOz543wbEVcFNW5Ri+OUKR2hYdjpCV NW84d7gmpyPyqNjmS4ZxKfpMIf/IT5Skx0ZbXw2O9t0XwAf0/Vjmo3tRSmIiyyJ7Iikb Yut/WOsMmMx59ChMWUZtycn71N8dx5LNgwQpatAESsW/hBlikFTI+yM7qRZtbd/i+uLk I9rv8S2LlQV/DzSdo0/kcEV6fIcgmqh8S3rjE4D28NLo98XDUMIsH6kVceFxSRZR4WmS arHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/oZZLUDxg4M/YtHMSlBkDRYo6eiIKLBultl5kY86SjKf6JwRu +D1OOcSSIdTm2uHt7a9u80WfjbYp9ggbjw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0Uh6abMHvFbNMBm02yvO9M4Fh5yfFoiqzd4UXF1iLJAT6uiYd9Hpkoq5fDDVmhvRJUmMA6g== X-Received: by 2002:a62:5e04:: with SMTP id s4mr7344028pfb.67.1598133452616; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 62sm6123786pfx.47.2020.08.22.14.57.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:57:32 -0700 (PDT) To: Carsten Bormann , Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:57:28 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:57:35 -0000 On 23-Aug-20 09:26, Carsten Bormann wrote: =2E.. > Axiom: The RFC series is an asset that took 50 years to build. > Let=E2=80=99s not squander it. Yes. Hence https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00#pag= e-16 Brian From nobody Sat Aug 22 15:58:50 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C623A0883 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 15:58:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yn1D2qJG0FlY; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 15:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.49] (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2BD23A0489; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 15:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-AAF2EFE2-764B-4649-814B-BC3769F046C0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jay Daley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 10:49:46 +1200 Message-Id: <26A08DD5-E4B3-48DA-BDCD-3302DDDCC1B9@ietf.org> References: <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G68) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:58:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail-AAF2EFE2-764B-4649-814B-BC3769F046C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 22/08/2020, at 5:49 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > So I=E2=80=99m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that is t= he right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that advisor, wi= th a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process. By analogy the ED/LLC can consult on certain issues rather go through a cons= ensus process and that is made possible by a set of consensus guidance on wh= en/what to consult about (writing this in a mobile device so I can=E2=80=99t= list the RFCs that contain that guidance right now) and clear oversight in t= he form of the LLC board with all the safeguards of NomCom, appeals, recalls= etc.=20 For this role, either it stay standalone in which case that structure needs t= o be replicated, or the role is fitted into an existing structure. I underst= ood an earlier suggestion that the LLC appoint a PM to fit with the latter o= ption.=20 Jay --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail-AAF2EFE2-764B-4649-814B-BC3769F046C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22/08/2020, at 5:49 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote= :

So I=E2=80=99m looking for the power to go ahead with a decision that is th= e right thing to do, in the specific portfolio defined for that advisor, wit= h a consultation as opposed to an RSAWG consensus process.
<= /blockquote>

By analogy the ED/LLC can consult on certain= issues rather go through a consensus process and that is made possible by a= set of consensus guidance on when/what to consult about (writing this in a m= obile device so I can=E2=80=99t list the RFCs that contain that guidance rig= ht now) and clear oversight in the form of the LLC board with all the safegu= ards of NomCom, appeals, recalls etc. 

For thi= s role, either it stay standalone in which case that structure needs to be r= eplicated, or the role is fitted into an existing structure. I understood an= earlier suggestion that the LLC appoint a PM to fit with the latter option.=  

Jay

-- <= /div>Jay Daley
= IETF Executive Director



Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/= listinfo/rfced-future
= --Apple-Mail-AAF2EFE2-764B-4649-814B-BC3769F046C0-- From nobody Mon Aug 24 07:26:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7BA3A0E7B for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CEaB5ZZqvEg for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D8033A0E62 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7459100b5e27c489a2fe11e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e745:9100:b5e2:7c48:9a2f:e11e]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kADQ6-0007BX-DT; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:25:58 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:25:56 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598279161;4bae0ad7; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kADQ6-0007BX-DT Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:26:03 -0000 Hi Brian, > On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:11, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Right. In my model the Advisor doesn't take decisions; the Advisory WG = takes decisions by our very own rough consensus process. The Advisor = gives advice. Yes, I believe I understood your and Martin's proposal here but I got = the impression that Carsten has a different view on what the role should = be and was trying to clarify this. However, now that I actually had more time to look at your draft, I do = have a comment: I not convinced that ISOC is the right body here to put = in charge. Here are my reasons: 1) Reading Andrews recent mail on the list on nomcom eligibility list = where he says that he might become more and more detached from the IETF = community and therefore has a hard time to find good candidate for the = NomCom chair position, I=E2=80=99m afraid this could apply here as well. = The chairs of the proposed RSAWG don=E2=80=99t necessarily need to be = members of the IETF community but ISOC somehow needs a pool of people to = select from that understand the consensus process we run in the IETF.=20 2) In line with point 1, having the ISOC in generally running an = RFC2418-based consensus group directly _in_ ISOC is an entirely new kind = of activity and needs urgently feedback from ISOC and the Board of = Trustees. I=E2=80=99m really not sure if such a setup actually fits well = into the ISOC=E2=80=99s organisation otherwise. 3) More practically, if the ISOC or I guess the BoT selects the chairs = of the proposed RSAWG, we need a new appeal chain because ISOC is = basically our last resort so far but this would be an ISOC decision and = that should also be appealable somehow. 4) And finally a point that maybe not everybody might agree with. = However, we did discuss the importance of the IETF for RFC series and = the other way around. Given this crucial dependency I would like to see = a slightly tighter coupling here. I think we have agreement that the = community that is relevant for the RFC series is larger than just the = IETF, however, the IRTF, ISE, and the IAB are still closely connected to = the IETF and in practice I think people who care the most of the RFC = series are also somehow connected to the IETF. I think it would actually = not be right to neglect this situation. =20 This is my personal option and not a comment in my capacity as IAB = member. This is also not a comment on the IAB being the better choice or = not. However, I would be interested to understand why you think the IAB = is not a good choice? I think I read in an earlier message something like the IAB is too busy = already. Actually I=E2=80=98m not sure how true that is (but that a = separate topic to discuss) but I don=E2=80=99t think that would be an = argument for creating something entirely new within in ISOC if that=E2=80=99= s the sole reason. Mirja From nobody Mon Aug 24 10:34:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0060F3A1283 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D85EAI1px05C for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B89C03A1282 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id i20so8176712qkk.8 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Q+np5fEt67Uhd+TER+90TdORtCxnDav1M0KlOqBh19g=; b=j0Y2coKoR2Q3zLnjegX+QPX5vNmxyKPvKWSCkiLg6jsmEISsA3g4StZKQ0GPleNKZ6 MgyRiQxGGf5+jLBX9dDutmDhmE0twW88kmdpKuzIQzl5Cs+Y9GDf4YmqdN8MSzmRto06 HNFJwi3gl7mtbHpw9Wy/U42v+8Tqeoi227JdXohYyaRlOvPi3ZhMTvsTmoGCVA9sbFLu hemaQTgbduPjwT3IgpEPyzk6+PWX8YNUykqF8T4GTH9yqZWTmCnH8HaTXo5reAjXgwXx Giw0po2MqEmTbnElMsgOW61egPJE2dfhswP9Ojw1I4bRlVtGAOwdnIjTu+9vJqjOr7NR AlSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Q+np5fEt67Uhd+TER+90TdORtCxnDav1M0KlOqBh19g=; b=jzcStMJNaXBLY/8zCSqeCcFd5etGhvAMxhGR43EyTygY+Ofai+yC5bfBvEdrrBZ55N TsiO5AR6N1KYtVl0dw0n3Y+Cb/QMQB9gUdC8VfQ01dTqh4K6mReUFwI0EySRfMTjBDcR ej2uhcofkCOW3m3Dkvs+WZX+5U9irLSN+QdZZTLuG9pK7OqpxvpeQTskCA/dDBBB7KNg Qpfe7eV/6T8a6yjJ81xGwf+JRVXLZi/uyx045Xw37Gs8LYxsoDP8JauRhQj2RyILgNio Bi7OE/6wd+FcXWPLXhbL3iBKeMDCWGuyAK9WTuYZzRiAulSX/uyVzwMVuUbwkCIvzeJZ KbPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Fzldk8u6biQdf3GRE5pw3biPzRArSeJvKNR1FdrqjZDuWHolf 7uKNpMOt0Gh2vQbx420vt+DMhCgASt65v1ZR3Tw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxigRcYaksXHWQtiO3hlHc0DYM+GTDSxb8xbctbaGiSF0Xd0e7BpyWlDOVO3kveS70P7N8iig== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2:: with SMTP id j2mr5811737qki.497.1598290477435; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y14sm11890411qtc.84.2020.08.24.10.34.36 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:34:36 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:34:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:34:40 -0000 See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb/ My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and defend each comma and clause. Basically, this mostly leaves intact the operation of the RFC Series Function while splitting the functions previously held by the IAB into two specific ones:  Strategic evolution of the series goes to a purpose built organization - the RFC Series Editorial Board, while the contractual nitty gritty of paying for things gets firmly homed under the LLC. Enjoy - Mike From nobody Mon Aug 24 10:36:16 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721433A003F for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcD0KNReWkyH for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5E23A0039 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598290574; x=1599500174; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=m/i/T9RWEzvf0v8qYKOZeEWAMrujAjV13tbX4E/Mbew=; b=LajCRS45ecfYumVC5LENo6WfgvZcse1rO6fi1XhTnrROwbP2iRe6fEtJ UiLDLRJ3faN+GXUud09mth89FkqoUs0xIcl+gWQBHkc6BsOUeJZvhAQbU kY1fJknsjNuyWS35hxi75/+TYpIbSArpqNgT6cJrnJZ/UxwAMHA6f8h9B 8=; X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAAAl+kNf/xbLJq1fGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIE2BQEBAQELAYMZVAEgEiyMWGCIM5ofgX0LAQEBDAEBGAsMB?= =?us-ascii?q?AEBhEwCgkUlNAkOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgRthVwMhXIBAQEDAQEBO?= =?us-ascii?q?DQLBQsLGC4nMAYTgyYBglwgD7AtdIE0hE9BQoRvBoE4AY08ggCBOByCTT6CX?= =?us-ascii?q?AEBAwGBW4NKgi0Etj+CbYMMhViRQAMeoDKdC5Eng1gCBAYFAhWBVDqBVzMaC?= =?us-ascii?q?BsVOyoBgj4+EhkNlySFRD8DMDcCBgoBAQMJkRkBAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,349,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="26574463" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 24 Aug 2020 17:36:09 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com [10.61.83.96]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07OHa934012578 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:36:09 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 19:36:09 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.83.96, ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:36:15 -0000 Thank you, Mike. Does anyone else have any other proposals coming in = the short term? Eliot > On 24 Aug 2020, at 19:34, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb/ >=20 > My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and = defend each comma and clause. >=20 > Basically, this mostly leaves intact the operation of the RFC Series = Function while splitting the functions previously held by the IAB into = two specific ones: Strategic evolution of the series goes to a purpose = built organization - the RFC Series Editorial Board, while the = contractual nitty gritty of paying for things gets firmly homed under = the LLC. >=20 > Enjoy - Mike >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Mon Aug 24 14:29:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420773A0CBC for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.147 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A1Akk7cakUE5 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E41303A0CC0 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id z18so111648pjr.2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jwy1U7rc5Mn4abk5VbnGsPvZ84Fqi2PKRAPNZj2Zymw=; b=T88buBdNru75yZvS1V96vg9qSQ5PkCLa9oBDTV5gn/sf+ri8aC3SHaBeMdPE404edT eOxBx2isH0a4N+taucxR02G7Ds1tcS8vDIuYG01H5NjfKsYwM6sOx7h0O+/skAijMa6P 8p3VblKnhLt9HofWYeGyZ+a5Q0qclKk2CtnyfFfU9WHRN+CORIZQOAR+4gm61pkOBRNB Cwqpl40teoFkZwPtXw5dPrVUPtGSPKTbrkOdwbngpFCPwAMjSF0HkbQeM2Eu/xpsBdJ/ 9SyjRC3aQoeZI9i7/sDVr07bqWDEI++PDWv1jwGxa9CYFRAnt/RZDyfFDmzQcOcHJZMW 2U8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jwy1U7rc5Mn4abk5VbnGsPvZ84Fqi2PKRAPNZj2Zymw=; b=C/JXVUB49hiB/pBvy30mQBCxM4kBdHuNZAk+COtL9MZSHali2gA6Btpg1I1lVHWB6A 1/PWKdidzX5CdsapuGlb6jSKPvRScmMruKizIsOjCHVsgfc7h/yDIepzemqS0LFyVg1Z m0EvqdykdaSAd0E0QNcckVitlJLcX2oDRKG5ZQpNsGgXsnD5r/9lhGBCBNhZkb/LgHML J3lUg6kaBTugAfjV/s+H6yb7vERTmei1mIEPXN/wW+kf1fXIG0MHla7rDndX33EDshVx 1sr2hTQTgOGp4JohR2hDfJy4v0yIsHS0AUCxhxe9YYjCFwlPfhMtH8NwWG4zJxLpfAn1 uRZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5329740N4EVqHsUJJ+FUCwrIwepBe1TMZf0AZCtoqq86FmpB5Ldl pSMhM6CB0rXGWYXG63MJWfBsLVbXFumXww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9NllmAnrrNqjmk9t5hLogZT/UnOmcaJWVdexcRyA3WNj8AHjZd3xzj+tHR13sn+WSmejaiA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6fc6:: with SMTP id e64mr1010657pjk.34.1598304560795; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v11sm10223798pgs.22.2020.08.24.14.29.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 14:29:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:29:17 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:29:23 -0000 Hi Mirja, My response is at the end... On 25-Aug-20 02:25, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Brian, >=20 >> On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> Right. In my model the Advisor doesn't take decisions; the Advisory WG= takes decisions by our very own rough consensus process. The Advisor giv= es advice. >=20 > Yes, I believe I understood your and Martin's proposal here but I got t= he impression that Carsten has a different view on what the role should b= e and was trying to clarify this. >=20 > However, now that I actually had more time to look at your draft, I do = have a comment: I not convinced that ISOC is the right body here to put i= n charge. Here are my reasons: >=20 > 1) Reading Andrews recent mail on the list on nomcom eligibility list w= here he says that he might become more and more detached from the IETF co= mmunity and therefore has a hard time to find good candidate for the NomC= om chair position, I=E2=80=99m afraid this could apply here as well. The = chairs of the proposed RSAWG don=E2=80=99t necessarily need to be members= of the IETF community but ISOC somehow needs a pool of people to select = from that understand the consensus process we run in the IETF.=20 >=20 > 2) In line with point 1, having the ISOC in generally running an RFC241= 8-based consensus group directly _in_ ISOC is an entirely new kind of act= ivity and needs urgently feedback from ISOC and the Board of Trustees. I=E2= =80=99m really not sure if such a setup actually fits well into the ISOC=E2= =80=99s organisation otherwise. >=20 > 3) More practically, if the ISOC or I guess the BoT selects the chairs = of the proposed RSAWG, we need a new appeal chain because ISOC is basical= ly our last resort so far but this would be an ISOC decision and that sho= uld also be appealable somehow. >=20 > 4) And finally a point that maybe not everybody might agree with. Howev= er, we did discuss the importance of the IETF for RFC series and the othe= r way around. Given this crucial dependency I would like to see a slightl= y tighter coupling here. I think we have agreement that the community tha= t is relevant for the RFC series is larger than just the IETF, however, t= he IRTF, ISE, and the IAB are still closely connected to the IETF and in = practice I think people who care the most of the RFC series are also some= how connected to the IETF. I think it would actually not be right to negl= ect this situation. >=20 > =20 > This is my personal option and not a comment in my capacity as IAB memb= er. This is also not a comment on the IAB being the better choice or not.= However, I would be interested to understand why you think the IAB is no= t a good choice? >=20 > I think I read in an earlier message something like the IAB is too busy= already. Actually I=E2=80=98m not sure how true that is (but that a sepa= rate topic to discuss) but I don=E2=80=99t think that would be an argumen= t for creating something entirely new within in ISOC if that=E2=80=99s th= e sole reason. There are really two separate arguments here. One is exactly what you say= : the RFC Series is for the whole community (whatever that may be). Rooti= ng the RFC Series in ISOC rather than in the IETF is symbolic of that. I = agree with you that attaching it directly to the ISOC Board is not comple= tely satisfactory, and that would need more work. The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB sho= uld need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. Now that we have = the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is basically = a distraction from the technology? Just because the IAB has done this for= the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be able to focus = on Architecture. That's been my preference for 25 years, too ;-). Both my model and Martin's involve a group that works in accordance with = RFC2418. That model implies that somebody ought to act like an AD to over= see the chairs. Is that really a job for the IAB? Regards Brian From nobody Mon Aug 24 22:49:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051443A0A3F for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:49:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gSD9rhF-3ucv for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 252FC3A0A2A for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BbJ2k6zwDzyTK; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:49:02 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:49:02 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620027342.2795351-ba381cd596ba617b57049eb48d385d98 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:49:08 -0000 On 2020-08-24, at 19:34, Michael StJohns wrote: >=20 > My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and = defend each comma and clause. I=E2=80=99ll try to avoid clause numbers and commas, then. Summary: I have much less of a hard time imagining this structure to = work than the other two that have been presented. A few thoughts (but not many, as this is so close already): I think we can live without the description of the previous RSE disaster = as =E2=80=9CIAB=E2=80=99s missteps=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 that is behind us. I=E2=80=99m not sure "the smooth functioning of the operation and = evolution of the RFC Series=E2=80=9D is covering the whole gamut (see my = point =E2=80=9Creputation=E2=80=9D), but maybe that is just an issue of = integrating with 8728. (I wouldn=E2=80=99t mind having fostering = reputation listed as an explicit objective, possibly using a different = term if needed.) (The ISE *is* a stream manager, and with ES, the RSE is as well, so = there is a small terminology problem here with the I* stream managers = and the managers of a stream.) Do we have enough material in 3 how we plan to keep the RSEB and its = members free of IT project management duties? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Tue Aug 25 00:15:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6207E3A0B2F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrGsljkwMY_G for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D32F03A0891 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=592; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598339736; x=1599549336; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Jsksu4M6jFewwg0DXzvA92iVpQruIbiMVUNdzmu7agc=; b=f8a2RksilZKvN8rsnmZapnCAOEgGb6r56dO2OIEVxLbmN0BpknWd6Ylb UUPvhSVclnGarUIHA9eyCXRM+o2s8GdfNOywUYgAYwHcAcj0hsy27ZrKe rnB7CpOONVL3R/+VFt6FO6UKoAlVDTNZHUzD6jvoMjDWDHzWC5agfUsBO o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CpAAD8uURf/xbLJq1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgTkEAQELAYNtATKNZIgznBwLAQEBDAEBLwQBAYRMAoJGJTc?= =?us-ascii?q?GDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVzAQQBOj8QCxI0SQ4GgzmCXSCwG3SBNIV?= =?us-ascii?q?ShHWBOAGNPIIAgREnHIJNPoQ9g0qCLQS2QYJtgwyXGQMegnKdQq4zg1gCBAY?= =?us-ascii?q?FAhWBaiSBVzMaCBsVZQGCPz0SGQ2OKxeOJj8DZwIGCgEBAwmRIwEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,351,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="29031704" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 25 Aug 2020 07:15:31 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com [10.61.83.96]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07P7FVnA005968 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:15:31 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:15:31 +0200 Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.83.96, ams3-vpn-dhcp4961.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:15:37 -0000 Hi Brian and thank you for your draft. One clarification question: >=20 > The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB = should need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. Now that we = have the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is = basically a distraction from the technology? Just because the IAB has = done this for the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be = able to focus on Architecture. That's been my preference for 25 years, = too ;-). Why did you choose ISOC and not the LLC Board? Eliot From nobody Tue Aug 25 04:54:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB8C3A0C30 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 04:54:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZU34MoI5U3vk for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 04:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829C03A0C2E for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 04:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7459100e199940a1a0fa7fe.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e745:9100:e199:940a:1a0f:a7fe]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kAXX3-0000Wf-2Y; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:54:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:54:28 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <23A7182C-B168-47F2-BDC0-1161BA418E01@kuehlewind.net> References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598356472;96a00cba; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kAXX3-0000Wf-2Y Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:54:37 -0000 Hi Brian, See below. > On 24. Aug 2020, at 23:29, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Hi Mirja, >=20 > My response is at the end... >=20 > On 25-Aug-20 02:25, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> Hi Brian, >>=20 >>> On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:11, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Right. In my model the Advisor doesn't take decisions; the Advisory = WG takes decisions by our very own rough consensus process. The Advisor = gives advice. >>=20 >> Yes, I believe I understood your and Martin's proposal here but I got = the impression that Carsten has a different view on what the role should = be and was trying to clarify this. >>=20 >> However, now that I actually had more time to look at your draft, I = do have a comment: I not convinced that ISOC is the right body here to = put in charge. Here are my reasons: >>=20 >> 1) Reading Andrews recent mail on the list on nomcom eligibility list = where he says that he might become more and more detached from the IETF = community and therefore has a hard time to find good candidate for the = NomCom chair position, I=E2=80=99m afraid this could apply here as well. = The chairs of the proposed RSAWG don=E2=80=99t necessarily need to be = members of the IETF community but ISOC somehow needs a pool of people to = select from that understand the consensus process we run in the IETF.=20 >>=20 >> 2) In line with point 1, having the ISOC in generally running an = RFC2418-based consensus group directly _in_ ISOC is an entirely new kind = of activity and needs urgently feedback from ISOC and the Board of = Trustees. I=E2=80=99m really not sure if such a setup actually fits well = into the ISOC=E2=80=99s organisation otherwise. >>=20 >> 3) More practically, if the ISOC or I guess the BoT selects the = chairs of the proposed RSAWG, we need a new appeal chain because ISOC is = basically our last resort so far but this would be an ISOC decision and = that should also be appealable somehow. >>=20 >> 4) And finally a point that maybe not everybody might agree with. = However, we did discuss the importance of the IETF for RFC series and = the other way around. Given this crucial dependency I would like to see = a slightly tighter coupling here. I think we have agreement that the = community that is relevant for the RFC series is larger than just the = IETF, however, the IRTF, ISE, and the IAB are still closely connected to = the IETF and in practice I think people who care the most of the RFC = series are also somehow connected to the IETF. I think it would actually = not be right to neglect this situation. >>=20 >>=20 >> This is my personal option and not a comment in my capacity as IAB = member. This is also not a comment on the IAB being the better choice or = not. However, I would be interested to understand why you think the IAB = is not a good choice? >>=20 >> I think I read in an earlier message something like the IAB is too = busy already. Actually I=E2=80=98m not sure how true that is (but that a = separate topic to discuss) but I don=E2=80=99t think that would be an = argument for creating something entirely new within in ISOC if that=E2=80=99= s the sole reason. >=20 > There are really two separate arguments here. One is exactly what you = say: the RFC Series is for the whole community (whatever that may be). = Rooting the RFC Series in ISOC rather than in the IETF is symbolic of = that. I agree with you that attaching it directly to the ISOC Board is = not completely satisfactory, and that would need more work. >=20 > The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB = should need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. Now that we = have the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is = basically a distraction from the technology? Just because the IAB has = done this for the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be = able to focus on Architecture. That's been my preference for 25 years, = too ;-). So I=E2=80=99m not sure what exactly you mean by =E2=80=9Cthis whole = class of issue=E2=80=9D but given the IAB also appoints the ISE and the = IRTF chair, as well as reviews RGs, I would actually say that the IAB = does already deal with that. I agree that I would also like to see the IAB focusing more on = architecture but I think this is not because the IAB itself is too busy. = It depends a lot on the specific people on IAB which topics are = discussed and I would charterize the work of the IAB rather as = identifying and flagging problem/gaps than developing technology. After = all I would say that often members of the IAB are people who are deeply = involved in the work in the IETF and would probably do this = architectural thinking and analysis anyway but the IAB and IAB program = provide a forum to anchor this work and discuss in a group. Progress on = these things however often strongly depends on how busy these people are = in their day jobs otherwise. However, I believe that=E2=80=99s rather a = separate topic. But because the members of the IAB do usually cover a board set of = expertise in different areas of the IETF, usually including ex-ADs, = working group chairs, and of course document authors, and have = experience with interactions for all RFC streams that we have currently, = I actually believe that this group of people is well set up for the = task. However, I don=E2=80=99t necessarily want to argue for the IAB = being the right choice but I definitely think it=E2=80=99s the better = choice than ISOC. What=E2=80=99s missing in the current setup is a clear = description of responsibilities.=20 >=20 > Both my model and Martin's involve a group that works in accordance = with RFC2418. That model implies that somebody ought to act like an AD = to oversee the chairs. Is that really a job for the IAB? I think this is definitely not a job for anybody in ISOC. However, I = don=E2=80=99t see this as a challenge for the IAB. The IAB already = publishes RSE related documents in the IAB stream and appoints many = people in different roles, including the chairs/lead of IAB programs. = Also my experience as an AD is that if you have/select good chairs, = there is usually not that much additional support needed. Yes, there can = be exceptional situation but those situations are also something the IAB = needs to be able to handle anyway, e.g. when an appeal reaches the IAB. = So not sure which part of the job you think is not appropriate for the = IAB? Mirja >=20 > Regards > Brian >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Aug 25 05:19:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9F63A0CB7 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:19:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GrbwTF72xg3n for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671473A0CB4 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7459100e199940a1a0fa7fe.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e745:9100:e199:940a:1a0f:a7fe]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kAXvY-0003BG-3V; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:19:48 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:19:47 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598357990;d369a33f; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kAXvY-0003BG-3V Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:19:52 -0000 Hi Mike, Thanks for writing this down. I have some questions: 1) It is not fully clear to me who is responsible for making strategic = decisions. Is that the RSEB or is the RSE having the final decisions and = the RSEB is more advising the RSE? 2) Also related to the point above actually, why is it enough to have = "at least one stream manager member and one At-Large member [...] to = give their consent for any document to be published=E2=80=9D instead of = having the whole RSEB agreeing to it? 3) Why are the RSE and ISE the chair and vice-chair? These are the only = two members which do not have a term limit and I would fine it actually = an important feature especially for a chair and vice-chair to have a = specified term length and ensure there is a way to =E2=80=9Creplace=E2=80=9D= that person if the community is not happy about decisions made. Mirja > On 24. Aug 2020, at 19:34, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb/ >=20 > My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and = defend each comma and clause. >=20 > Basically, this mostly leaves intact the operation of the RFC Series = Function while splitting the functions previously held by the IAB into = two specific ones: Strategic evolution of the series goes to a purpose = built organization - the RFC Series Editorial Board, while the = contractual nitty gritty of paying for things gets firmly homed under = the LLC. >=20 > Enjoy - Mike >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Aug 25 05:48:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E323A0CFA for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:48:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[MAY_BE_FORGED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wj3pEHZvW_FF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4343F3A0CFB for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07PCmg6S015656; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:42 +0100 Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FBD22032; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34732203C; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (1.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.1] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07PCmfnr007288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:42 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Mirja Kuehlewind'" , "'Michael StJohns'" Cc: References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> In-Reply-To: <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:42 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <0b7501d67ade$1072dda0$315898e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQICLbJu6pG1mMtcL2fBJMUauQxvzQK5VBPrqNuTM0A= Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.1 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25624.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.110-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.110-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25624.007 X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.109600-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fE0JoqABJp2xq1IXFBRg6HFPUrVDm6jtIiTd2l7lf6E7sEw6V/IotIy+ AfTlDGN1odCg1Yb+06A9vUc08rywOj4Pcn5OGAtGvTbC9sRJi8tPuJLkicrbeiNGK7UC7ElMchN VR70F5w4nGSFU61gqYt9K/x1dni5zD1T2KgGTliz5WZT2GFh+nTyW+6AAWIU/bpP1MXIEsoaz8P T1VYprMO3Bj4pHoS11nBYRiiCaeCwApIQ1X2G0S5zEQqkMw+XnGbJMFqqIm9zDOS0FhcAXSngSq l3zhup/kiSdzajoknk2qMmOg5bvM0e5WJKiP6U79Ib/6w+1lWRzKWE0ih8hCIpl689MOw1GYUlW 0v0211K3hoq8urVVbQfHf8v6X1TsRg0jmMEf83NQ+S0N05fR+yILdc+InEErEj9j4mOn1w6jxYy RBa/qJeHvPwwcLlxndB0ntd9Tzp47AFczfjr/7HEqnEJ117T2ZzfyCr+sR3iTbw3qW2pSIf/Vjg 6CvZmUjGhWnTno8hM= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:48:47 -0000 Hi Mirja, I think this discussion is making some progress towards discovering what = we want to achieve. Just pouncing on one thing, and asking a question for clarification... > 3) Why are the RSE and ISE the chair and vice-chair? These are the = only > two members which do not have a term limit While what you say is true, there are two mitigating factors: 1. There is a 'convention' that the ISE agrees a two year term with the = IAB as part of appointment. This ensures a degree of commitment to = continuity on both sides which is (I think) important for the role. (The = RSE was, of course, covered by a contract with duration and renewal = terms). 2. In the case of the ISE, the IAB is allowed (should be encouraged!) to = replace the ISE if they are underperforming or if there is significant = disquiet from the community. (The RSE was subject to 'termination' per = the contract.) > and I would fine it actually an important feature especially for a > chair and vice-chair to have a specified term length and ensure > there is a way to =E2=80=9Creplace=E2=80=9D that person if the = community is not > happy about decisions made. I think there are a couple of things buried here: - Do the chair/vice-chair make decisions are chair discussions? - Is there a distinction between chair/vice-chair term length and RSE/ISE term length? (Agreeing that if the chair/vice-chair is by definition the RSE/ISE then there is no practical difference.) - Would you expect that the need to replace the chair/vice-chair could ever not extend to the need to replace the RSE/ISE? In=20 other words, might the problem be limited to fulfilment of the chair/vice-chair role while other aspects of the RSE/ISE work=20 continued to be good? This might come down to whether you define being the chair/vice-chair as fundamental functions of the RSE/ISE or whether you say, "Oh we also need a chair/vice- chair, so let's make use of the RSE/ISE." Best, Adrian From nobody Tue Aug 25 06:06:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785913A0D02 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0Q4k0Usakdk for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 198703A0D03 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id i10so6758416iow.3 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to; bh=eD+LrsSRSwwAhQgmRxBfFwinWiHwCvBcgfPhV1udv1A=; b=D3YgtTadzprMqXLoBJGY7t+dXJVaPsXLjWMsZd8shoDeXzQ6KFVpEuLACviZMh24Dk CHwlb9BQEbSZm4uNz+9YDVLFZR7trtfGL57odXmLstWy+LycopmiUutC+3fVG3eFSZuQ nQzX5YHgThYZ+2BBawgTL2bgSPhDhB0cL5m/RaJ56jjuE8ftziFJGnfQDRGu+2oy3Xg2 w4GvBREp8PAXPPrMI8VMA88fgh8C87w/OGg+hTSozdc90S0JVlSsGtvIc7ZF3dbWp++u xJknrEYcAA3Ihg4EfnSL4C9nxkmdKTAmbZLDEnUcSCsB8PVTXH1l1xpLYw+uTR36wO3J 6Pkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to; bh=eD+LrsSRSwwAhQgmRxBfFwinWiHwCvBcgfPhV1udv1A=; b=O6ay//8Qqu4LuduC5Z0VeCtc4Jl9iTRqZAq7eVQdHoRCpfAbwk6zMmrXDr5UuROMeN 974OgvabWfQpX/fBnsmncZ1/+kGKgbJAL/mYyzNxnlzclT4Nt+ZIaw79381GcsmaRGR3 N9qmhxFp0/cKO51z+0NOpRIbR3+WghAQETKPDGi1EzD0Q35NLnqHz38qflIYmrTE30l8 A37SiLc/Yowvd4n63p2tdQ+MXPAp6O9kkR193/4gonbWG3ioPPBOT5Z8bK1uGOUnyj6a 9hHxB9UNfp1UbBDPHasAMpb9mnY2/Eci7aJtUSpMJ4zG3rcIKGmNOgy68GaY5D3ZvbGB kjSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321OYkqX7Z/3sxWY0/VPeB77whFoL/7v1NFrq5lrpQPttXjM9dr oO23UFLi51F2PxuILSWYnLEkYXfHtyVFV28f X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqqzdLxcc+e5fI92ZT4O8FZsbyYNH7zEvvmwXOQjtYFECZtbGPne7EerVEa7UaxfYvsGPTUg== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b405:: with SMTP id d5mr8516921iof.178.1598360806729; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n15sm8332671ioc.15.2020.08.25.06.06.46 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rosen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:06:44 -0400 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Any last minute drafts coming? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:06:49 -0000 We have several good drafts to work from. If you don=E2=80=99t think = any of these are an appropriate foundation to adopt as our starting = position, please write SOMETHING and get it out now. If you do = anticipate writing a draft, please let chairs know. Brian and Eliot= From nobody Tue Aug 25 09:55:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7445A3A0F88 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:55:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeGAMIucW0Kb for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4294A3A0F79 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BbZqh08pzz1pBFv; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:55:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1598374528; bh=a8Uh1KoppZMWkEmUMql7vZb+rJsVcDMv8XuKa8+YykE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d32FmCikc3Hzt3Q1pNI+PUgaAWRIiBoP+5gV8HJlQu3io48wu4hjQw2gPfpBD0+AP ZyN7of9KDdp5GXZr5HyqNU+0fWJjZyA+nXUlDwAEw5hHaxkqgbYmz4malHN0k1qZ0r V2kP1busZ7WjCkMcXutc1ermqs+kAfY2L/TCkpeY= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.42.2] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BbZqf5GQhz1pBG9; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:55:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , Brian E Carpenter Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Mirja Kuehlewind References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:55:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:55:30 -0000 I don't know why Brian made the choices he did. In my book, we carefully crafted the LLC and its board to focus on administrative activities. It is not constituted around policy issues. We had a lot of discussion about what the remit of the LLC board should be. Owning and serving as an appeals chain for a community-in-the-large policy and strategy activity seems a direct contravention of what we agreed in establishing the current administrative structure. The LLC having contract oversight responsibility does seem consistent with the defined structure, and that aspect seems to be something most of the proposals agree on. Yours, Joel On 8/25/2020 3:15 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Brian and thank you for your draft. One clarification question: > > >> >> The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB should need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. Now that we have the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is basically a distraction from the technology? Just because the IAB has done this for the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be able to focus on Architecture. That's been my preference for 25 years, too ;-). > > > Why did you choose ISOC and not the LLC Board? > > Eliot > From nobody Tue Aug 25 11:58:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E6F3A08C6 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:58:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=umSfb81X; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=VQSPufhB Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYnVT-2xWKq9 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D216F3A0114 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 70373 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2020 18:58:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=112e2.5f455f6c.k2008; bh=kVLS5HbQRk5P9D9wxWFEWPIGQg7nA/mqx5IwMZ2Tcw8=; b=umSfb81Xc9DzBZf9JV/dlgUYdWe3Zgr6y6TZMxJgoXqUuKjkaygb6t6uEpDKHWEYKyfbZfsjnLYYzvyGDfVxrgAUWrICrLB/z2oT0RnWMX9xyy/LrifCBVA1ZpVKGA/OFyrCJzJNi449eZxHK4Os5UeoQS9e/YyKqR0fwa9IIrfUbJSLOGuE/wTvJzdR77mr8p2tBNmbL2x3v6Rg8Mqvr2b2nV0lbkfLarDTnVaC2WY25jaV4kxvjddJrsxEVfTQkhxky1lTkfzUE5WAIe58EawJpVQox0wIXBsVAEk8JFqbjB9RBW1VzK2iyZJbyBmW7MVnc0rAGPq7sdUoBtq5RQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=112e2.5f455f6c.k2008; bh=kVLS5HbQRk5P9D9wxWFEWPIGQg7nA/mqx5IwMZ2Tcw8=; b=VQSPufhB6/hhN8uIYd4wIJyH9xNoCJ7aUllYlni5/YFL/efwh3dNdJjnRAbSl2rVTm/86paH4oqKZeAK5FgsRgyv8UOHBGSIbx9nVHApcx36QRFac5AgYbU0eLBT9NXKdmDIoE4s4XAJDBXiBvKtdpsEP6tuLm2YBDC5Ejgf8NBp2tlhzyOlKjdPQcPxE3TJd8LriuWOLu0YB6LsXnqhVWAEV4RrWgLui/7u0eLptyYrsUWmW6rlaSbpuoTyA42xCne+T/UMQBawaAMy/XCAoPkpQk2K7i2i3U635e6PJVwDjH1HC+u4MdekVBmScectBt/CFXJOQRJ2DRqzjNAHYw== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 25 Aug 2020 18:58:51 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 529981F2708F; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: 25 Aug 2020 14:58:51 -0400 Message-Id: <20200825185851.529981F2708F@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org Cc: lear@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:58:56 -0000 In article <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> you write: >Hi Brian and thank you for your draft. One clarification question: >> >> The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB should need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. >Now that we have the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is basically a distraction from the technology? Just >because the IAB has done this for the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be able to focus on Architecture. That's >been my preference for 25 years, too ;-). > >Why did you choose ISOC and not the LLC Board? Briefly putting on my ISOC board member hat, no to both. Modern ISOC boards are very different from when Brian was on the board 20 years ago. The majority of the board is selected by the chapters and org members, and know as little about the IETF as a typical IETFer knows about ISOC chapters. They have neither the expertise nor the interest to oversee the RFC series. If you asked, I'm pretty sure we would say no. (Well, we minus me since due to my dual role I'm recused from anything that potentially touches the LLC.) For the LLC, I echo Joel's comments that the LLC handles our business, not the policy. If there were an issue about the terms of the contract, that's for the LLC to sort out. Policy issues belong with the IAB or IESG. R's, John From nobody Tue Aug 25 19:22:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BA13A0BA7 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=DNlOKkGZ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=g/zoUBSF Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A9RKneEgK0KZ for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9822A3A0BA6 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BF5D17 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:22:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s= fm3; bh=3vDBSs1Ctlhq+8YaW/OYYwQmy881ZfxPingC3J985/c=; b=DNlOKkGZ OsotnIPFnDUyRmiKob3HaolWsTHHYNkKEuNtUz+jMNMJm20xUK/4sTyRZVq09taF xXHXRMegMK/ALJn8TOH1uq/LxUbUPRXsWxkDDn+QduZLVEymhDHN1HvIR9SlKknw sLdkm956kqdh+mVQlyfY80f3t5lnxqDYeymjdMIWRHQM4kUpXLbld3aSQB/QFqBJ hj9Lm9QC+g3rxSEasGiczXNH0AeIwCnBX6kGLfaNq/6vl/k0dpbUrgnirrSYfuyd YVfIGXbWhuh12K/10S1AGzd+PO2o67udcdddBRz6IDDqwKtT6TST1XzGJe8Cl7Hf Fcb4AAjJzo5DeQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=3vDBSs1Ctlhq+8YaW/OYYwQmy881Z fxPingC3J985/c=; b=g/zoUBSFnGu3xuBt97Z74vGHj9Imrfw4i0gvopN/ZGh67 dAbMogKZV/MdrsljgzZTa4cmSxs694FSi3mgO5mxfpROHPHncywpVC9iiC4Kj0Dk yzcjs+A9xh8GZxqQPAj2WmgoRLXzMUrc/CXBNj+xOqiu1Mdg2flK95xtgfhIDcyU x3VnRv7t4BhFm7dXy6RTjHmN2oIuPhcBLA68Btud8g2JZ8aMnuNpxrxzztbTMEVI QoemaM8e7Ozbb7S52yEN6++yGaCzQHNuUG7liQO8ik6DjMlmdlAfCne1ilWKApIK 91zZvuVvXFaGbg8bTJWIF7bhk6wNUhmX0uW38DFvQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddvuddgiedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfffhffvufgtsehttdertd erredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhhofigv nhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevgfdutdfgjeefudeuheekhe ekudeugeehfeegveekkeegleevveffueduffehheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt necurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 055E9200C9; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:22:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-232-g4bdb081-fm-20200825.002-g4bdb081a Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:22:05 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:22:28 -0000 On tricky problems we often do this little dance where no one says what they really want. I think that it is important to be clear on what aspects of proposals are important as opposed to those that are either consequences of other decisions, arbitrary, or soft preferences. So let me touch on three points of contention: 1. where strategy happens For me, my overriding goal is to define a system whereby substantive strategy decisions are both discussed and resolved in a public forum. From this, I derive two hard objections to the drafts that Mike has so helpfully published: * no body with closed membership * no tenured, employed, or contracted "leader" Requirements that meetings be public are not sufficient to achieve this goal. IAB and IESG meetings are also routinely public, but the only places where true engagement occurs is at plenaries, which is inadequate. The latter applies, but to a far lesser extent to Brian's formulation of the Advisor role. Conferring any amount of authority as part of employment/contract has - in my experience - produced bad outcomes. 2. how strategy is overseen I have less of a strong preference regarding the body that acts as a process backstop. I chose the IAB primarily because I saw no good alternative and it was a small change. I specifically avoided suggesting a new body on the basis that this seemed excessive, and it creates yet another point in the system with closed membership. I also anticipated John's concerns about the ISOC Board; they are a fine second backstop for the entire IETF process, but this case seems like an imposition. I hope that the reasons not to choose the IESG don't need to be listed. 3. where strategy is documented I have no real objection to the creation of a new stream, but note that the function of stream manager for that stream creates another position of authority that an individual fills. That said, adopting an open process might be sufficient to avoid problems. FWIW, though I've heard that publishing series maintenance documents on the IAB stream was considered to be a burden, in my time there I saw no evidence that the (lightweight) IAB approval procedures were a genuine problem. From nobody Tue Aug 25 20:17:11 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5033A0C17 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:17:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jncK8-DFkbak for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D95D3A0C15 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25628BE24; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 04:17:05 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e1fr72vgWSSg; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 04:17:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42BEDBE2F; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 04:17:03 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1598411823; bh=+GEI/woO293pvlYKa8sxwV0gaeEjfrn6mO0JCZj90cs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=x2ZgE6BoVITalQsU3WbGrZ/UuJ1t8Thi/ydXtm3igVHGg/IgfswiGo3KaIW/vbfvD H5wxhdMZjEzgypoJiNIoz1sLSUKkGCh95cQFtApVyOLjRvtRASwQ3Fvjpk/bjhDi5U pOlkzlcAfh732ol8HAlWT1zMA5Z5IZuycI6BSQX0= To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> From: Stephen Farrell Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw== Message-ID: <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 04:17:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DHmlW0cc6R1XtiSzrqWyqaypBximPOTqG" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 03:17:11 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --DHmlW0cc6R1XtiSzrqWyqaypBximPOTqG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="tjoSqmFEVtp8XXYhqX9eEbwLyYZd0Mx7C"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> --tjoSqmFEVtp8XXYhqX9eEbwLyYZd0Mx7C Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------038BEF898211683F967C95BB" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------038BEF898211683F967C95BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, A clarifying question below... On 26/08/2020 03:22, Martin Thomson wrote: > For me, my overriding goal is to define a system whereby substantive > strategy decisions are both discussed and resolved in a public forum. > From this, I derive two hard objections to the drafts that Mike has > so helpfully published: >=20 > * no body with closed membership I kinda get that, though your terminology is a bit odd, e.g. the membership of the LLC board or IAB are both closed though anyone can volunteer in the nomcom process for (almost all of) those seats. >=20 > * no tenured, employed, or contracted "leader" I do not get that. Can you say how you conclude that "discussed/resolved in public" implies the above? I don't see it myself TBH. Ta, S. --------------038BEF898211683F967C95BB Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nem CP5PMvmh5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kT q0IqYzsEv5HI58S+QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtE gvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKrEMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy +pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZUbUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5 iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqOVz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9 to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJgb097ZaNyuY1ETghV B5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k4LyM2lp5 FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9t lyWxn5XiHzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQAB tCFTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgPHN0ZXBoZW5AamVsbC5pZT6JAj0EEwEIACcFAlo9 UYwCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQWrL68XsXK+qG CxAApYHWYgGOIL3G6/OpkejdAkQoCVQAK8LJUSf6vzwost4iVfxIKcKW/3RqKNKk rRl8beJ7j1CWXAz9+VXAOsE9+zNxXIDgGA7HlvJnhffl+qwibVgiHgUcJFhCSbBr sjC+1uULaTU8zYEyET//GOGPLF+X+degkE/sesh4zcEAjF7fGPnlncdCCH3tvPZZ sdTcjwOCRVonKsDgQzBTCMz/RPBfEFX44HZx4g1UQAcCA4xlucY8QkJEyCrSNGpG nvGK8DcGSmnstl1/a9fnlhpdFxieX3oY2phJ1WKkYTn6Advrek3UP71CKxpgtPmk d3iUUz/VZa0Cv6YxQXskspRDVEvdCMYSQBtJPQ4y2+5UxVR9GIQXenwYp9AP2niv Voh+ITsDWWeWnnvYMq07rSDjq0nGdj41MJkNX+Yb2PXVyXItcj5ybE3T2+y3pSBG FEZYJGuaL4NwtBJFMOdOtBmUOPbetS2971EL3Izxb7ibOZWDwexv+8R6SWYfP1wV N3p46RyBQuXqJV8ccE11m6vtZTGSYgnLUUFZMRQYH+0hwuYe0T3AA18xDdSYsa8v ovCCd3l5S4UNzIM2PMChqGrEzKapUpZg7+8ACcxRU3b9Ihd7WYjJ+pQPCoWYKozv tEvenbNpE/govO/ED3B14e+R2yevRPjRrsN7PJzSf15fQLuJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9 UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLrSwf+MIHbFRQ4O5cmLYR5sIByWelN3SuRN/gW8rpKo9Ok Cz6An8uV/iCXy5tNMLzzi0BFl8f22DwBcC5qy9qnlIAdogWam1qWoTAoAD8veEqm uKhYrqJsCcAyNrKYmK0hP3rpHxx1LySDmKYXmw/8qtBXKHTouMm+5tSsznhykRMT AAr2p7PSaHgo+hIVaW/rKSspHjDhhZS+G9mtOZad1IH29M6G1Q1NCO0Ywe8krKLQ IAQlFxtgvOqpPOZNzeKBa/+KbE8TGgMWrkOhC8OeEM5PVzdDhlhD9kPzB/pCKDF5 DofJ/ZRqnDpbKPQ0bsW38AOig3kOc0A27awiBEw3urqR1YkCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4X CgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJbtyScAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSI/oP/0A9J9nrnBMq Zpm857lfYWw+rshLK+tyeP4OQeOqnDFvs9jePpcyJLG3DF2r6VbVKPQq+AE6Uf5h cJBDEN6BjEhRPSbLcqG3A1cz/nNwm8rPmNp+oKhmaBBQGxwciMLmzgynsDydnjPp MyEs04zvsbsl4vrp2095o105l8KcrrxQrioFjbwveGwHQK9bxJKhx9D+gIk+MouB ur45UDKTZkMZrr9FGrtkyXCGAxvKdcNC5Oa8z9sj1rcUJfG/OpVAMWhArdlZbFUQ yoX6pU2Zb1CR2qpWAVerGSfBhmfCyStjARqaKxlftjO+Bj3Jj73Cr5eqej3qB5+V 4BCsPjr4RLvVbYUCPsRdxWc+nBLlfVYkRURu21g1hFm5KFPjgUkyo1s4vjUOY8Dy I+xLGF7f/IhUBG6l+Vswhpwu7ydalZkeFiPx5xna5NfbEYxvsIf71DvipGvIOaHv X4egWoFgm8n/9c3rcMxJtpwHPSsUt5dgLsyu6VE0IbvOAc3dN7CWJ355DVFJq9Zg 2YVf0izSpyyzJeGsgkfjW6xpmdvZxuT2UcN4BTcm6vYqueASGrb3lfhzC5gpeVsc /MoSjTS65vNWbpzONZWMZuLEFraxWJzC0JrDK3NCd0VN3kstqGkVbUIiYOnUm8Vu 4zoVMLlGWzHLIGoPRG2nRezn1YyNfyb5iQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8 pK1gE7QL/ApC5P68W5DrI1787WJVZv1u4t/g39vTr7Xer3UMTVQg10vpa7pmqOGh jIDzDMg3Pe3K3M7fVzfAlUA1qw6ne4RCueVoRKpubeF4AlYbMr0K6hNCPjt5uAxm bBVuejKTc6pru5rv5gKL0nDbr+Snft5xt7juBLSSimw0/41sZnkjCxo9rF/RA/v6 +uWyK171RKmsEYu8fFtw1eqUNt/Xj792TUixE3pxXheNtQtZGk/9P3W83ChhG4Fh 5EQsn0pIh9wZIAbMRLpgRKyW87fWHZC8/YH8h7afarvn9Thl5pFUldCe22mNJj6K LChn2aEHQd+PdY1GBpZEcmNEUPuovwzatM0h64hCzTm41eDqRfihZVBT7TbfXQnv 8rywa42Mk756RGzzEZcQEhwQXZcMQUfxIQQ2VyJo0zG36VdZTQF7TF/4Lz7/3cJ5 6jOIm+dwPXtu+C2wAQuD4USOLt4JWPYpqzDfHYJIND/497P9Z9SuQeahr2ez3DRB g3qsHEjBV7QyU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsICgyMDE3KSA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJyZWxs QGNzLnRjZC5pZT6JAkAEEwEIACoCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwEC HgECF4AFAlo+o3cCGQEACgkQWrL68XsXK+qO0A//ZsfQzyXrZlu/eEV5jU620yeO M3P7SW3C3UQYdCgZ/TlvxGgKow5oDSXgjMiUyq9csGqbPBxlDYSxFZHNeDVKYIuP 2ZK24tw5k6duTh4+sFwUualTMlcp0zBCIzn3hRcsRvuPKHfl5+6oOi0+xqx3jX/s /69L/fvHmdSKet5LIUAxoYaZkTCruFrPWb01tgAl5JExWkhmCY98iD+EeiIMAWBj Mw1xV+p0uCwNbN6XDzcToK7wsm+tAIiWUy3DpP60a6WbVwdV0HNt2WZq5U5Jdh2k 4S+sN2CnYk4tTW7jHjsWarV3FLISCOObADZuB7ljU4kYfdwZ+WzenXY4LGlxGQSl AblGjwZe4EIkCXAJUtzJhoFUuGaF/PlWjxqV3UFRcgTERZTijguVyREre8GNERNg vDxZvuXssEjvz9X5JfcIZDIJpdzhLiEIj9noUbfx1SzB5KDPQj0O7elMHa1671/r wWcpGr/MfVPTOik4H7F8rcVJelceZTzC4tvya7M+jM4fyFWWt8Y4atTixUiP7U9o 4uBZCQ0GzvsmFA4XLqn2pA5rVizMXnGbGOjufAP/efEJ4ul3qvjYe8ye8DXEDjKA xo/tuHYtk19XCi83QzFhWls5TT+XQeVTMEvVqo9Wek8yoxo67qvLKKqIcG9givQd 8MxYNAbNYgSPtkbhZ8SJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLzHAgAlWT6 NXEGtw/r1miKNGcopzvzILQ9oB8rKI9U9EL6tOf/y2V5oYee/GyQDb3ZdoPxxYYc Jf+RyiH1nMoqUIZiZJaf3bJXinDZ5+AdfE++UR2NBvqaNyC6u3r24jo1B/sagKbY tWgsYtRqHLD4IWi37MZrVyjBuF7u14Q07+uhjq6mX2O/tHpCYw/Q82tbeTRPyUf1 WQOAfD1kfBpW9PvAva5Iw9FWeXpCXRzwxnCZhYfGfqtuSw6CPBYLdbikqML6FZ7E DuTBb/8um1wK7Y9bgeIQC+CYjhYB5RXa1tDJRab2Js4luCvSR0w/CgHw26293tlv e2Q6UTrmHxP5U22DlokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1QMgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkK CwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6tJpD/4rrILH+meP07vrx8wW5eYuqCiP GYnh/CXxIF8eLrfbe5d4QRgtq+w6UeQPMyzKRIRiCoBXB2oJLBZHyxBPxZlg33dT MrEGn8QWKx2iNuz9rZMXyOSWFetuO01d/aUPd5BnbLbIyK5of8xCQlXM6KH8bc+9 gQ7edR9mfLTdvBf2FR522hg8BRBM1imKc3vO8v39+qIHHRjuiwxBBCAOhHtHRsZX ripS0uFA07dM46Oi/E8osjx6fQt/lH5z/PN+2adxYSrLSAXfr1oD3RxYNhuWgyGF L64/VCQb1YGjf0Z5MBPnWm9jgUoOY5K9eNSS0L83WeJjlF5+Q/WOgB+rb49Prm2D Feo9+S9f2V53Llz1WIspXJg6f+n9lmHE94MfQj1GAHCzI0FeL19lvM+LhD8jJSCb hrC3+yobyy/AUOs5Z3E+njjX1FF/VCVAs6iOa6i+XG+Y1hh3ir2y1kckJ5auT10M SU8GEZu9ayU4M3o3N9yxOjaoP0NuQ4MMLL/n/u4u94AeZaHPNBXn/hVfVRRmpRXt GKvJtFAEppGEYezB+bLKIm6XlpPkhnwYzleLZ7AMEco2C6QM8QPB3g3JpS3sqRhA 5rEP4lL16BmijmF+CHoPE/zwgKZbKpyVDqvIW5IDgvfIC2X4pbZDRvGIUKaGSB4+ ksZgUUnNyvfQr2p7jokCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJb tySbAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSeKkQAJm44jt1kwHgQgeDBKdjdvl0AjE0xVEQxriZ6lP/ l//34YT0auFfzsYIrChSpQXAEtobBAr4Ohw1Us+BZe+H5P8vm6LRuPwozC3SjwfX 4Iec8+9ot6tIVg4sbedDSgb/CCFVjsmIGcQ1P73JLJTBJ6mxYCV/gn3QC6bwDOFo 7kD9FDHCjRN8XfhHQ4Q9cYyt06uF31qG/aumgWYC9geCGgAwiHgwxNYb9GoJ0iZj CROwbYvLTcQgsVUW2bTmsVR13UVKDsdl02sRV7qcVYW6R0a3Ra8KudX+nt25H5DR Gd382KZ5W8pydsy/viTvD9z6v0ulChBYxAedIvGIClrhbxlLEPmIg4ImVOLGqsUg Vm32J95WOjEkk4PEZ12xSDBtwhSJqmJNboWlfmw43KdIbY8zNhffIO3N6O7FsdGx mqyHeLoTpqY+ySVUPpbuyW8ujnI/J//+6hdTZ9dQsEJQlWngKuWOQ5ma58MPSN88 zllsqhZAFQjNxqnkSzL6ZQ+v/jvuRRe16B80AeO55DsmbWsMv/YLLD1mSi7+Khy2 EtMBhgojWwrGMvdLN6X3mnzNJEscYyLxM9tSk+iySP2sLthK0BVgpAzBSdaf/ezI z60P+neHDzteNFf8Mn7lmgYk1amvZoJ29s5+n2HwxyRL5dVMyMdyQmntubbctfqr Z0tIiQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gnCYMAJY4FeIYjlIXGghFWzsB 4fYwK1+iaFpU3fSto5qcrqVtVPjXpwqczqBWeXGyQxiB0kan4OVAXydIeaP8EAuF CA7paP3s9STLJBO3KurkwyRkPW5zo0X7xVqaVToRsX2Ul98KVJoHYQD1KdezEtwl vpNwiiBr42AYR751Vm6JBVAbQXuFpB3c8bUV0OkkRxNFtL8/2PieHar58n5dntGk bPlPkztahsFqktgacIgXHX5vaT+7YeeZ1DWLOYjGO0wNhkOSeroCmxwJUikU7joB p823L7r5KfpqWTPpSCzVstQKZUGmmoE1qCswY/Ud5wvp9SccpIILkRXj0rZRtfnE 5MpL3hjmtNzfDd9qIsJtBJlSB2hZwAsVm1l+EWN9hG3tqyA43niUMy2n6q690of3 berSiQ+kvY/aC9Hx8I+bKzOV9/J2VUTqfaPZa4Uy2rVX5Q2p69n/PMj7mEer0rCL 3j9V16J9c+s0BSkXoKdtYdB0TWVhBgUybd9qtYcwHWvhP7QuU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJy ZWxsIDxzdGVwaGVuQHRvbGVyYW50bmV0d29ya3MuY29tPokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1R WgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6jsc EADEcB0WQEZn2AkrzDs1RhL0Lp6cZi0BigofkbcGfdhJyMSs19C0dhvncrAFClVI 6/Udw3yFtDyYtOCf2W3M3A1K6/RfEizCLzTsdFIhni9gOJLlUpXViQtgrlstjk7h qVV3Ooz4BlCqS4cG7rfqf4LQQPpTAuFUEV9I28FBUB2irqC+v4gTysIgpMw0bA1y BU9sX5jE/tRkzqnuzZrkwiobDtRFJ9qp+7O2JtcY4EsVtLAsaodJKc5cF8R4OvB1 n66vxxcgg9Eh4JNWZ47xsaCmAGo1Bcb2jIY35OtgAL7gCGLRSMKTtAaPy1/fEgIq hCljJ9x40Fkn/3r2BX21WC9HFSPFTBz2RluLRzxdgxOrkYK8EiHUPoE5b1AEzZKw 2AbeXfr57f5zYsN3IqfbQLUjMYtUN1wK3Pjb+idD972wyXMWt8uOzlI7b9Ocu+nY m2whBfJv9Pmp3QYTmPz+LB9lH65VNVUSxSXVr5iWXO3qx1HtEiGEqkporMQCTh3T 5Ud3PvMSRBFFKNs9WhJ/Lxz+SV30WLwG6dr5mQqlzAhb4Phc/zekZyXRdS/oDKrB LUucS36O//49JeyRi1QvOfxnfmIqRIAf/k3PoYJmTo5E82//r5Qj3YGlRu78ba0H Arxs+ACD6AnEHHcbswpbtVEKYzlSu0Ar0Dc7vRWM/IyQdIkBHAQQAQgABgUCWj1S oAAKCRAvPIc2gF+NosIsB/9f/29FNla3BJfGIEIDnhrqGD0i9bSa89SqBd++uG06 TQgW5wsqtNcrwn81yZTq6XE6i9VtD4GKfqC0d4KZJr9bnbeD81cI64VOdL8zJWJs 0vj5EIXCobKyX74Kb4uePUyZqwT2Q74I116u/HwA9/FXsPo5isbh4ZqD4t0VHpWk mfq1FPT9a/JPyX46qKqB2Fce/7Qy+SQP1NfkuUlbhUH/JG9aSSYvk3lznNiH41x9 M+FDlL106itXOubrl3oi2fT3fsSedq7uzt+IV0DQEeNaoQAUuwEhdB8IWOMqN2wo DjGVKJftfsSWY9ilZrnDBNDrp0vRqcx33LUMkIw4d7iBiQIzBBABCAAdFiEEfhcK BFyEz0YOK3mgEO952f2DUxIFAlu3JJwACgkQEO952f2DUxJjuw/6ApHSsVTWD4a0 H6FJ23A9Ftpy+aXZ4vYlzkSrfsn2ECrEfK3lXQh/uzwjJUDYZeB1/BQsFZtcYNQO JSSHbQ49BFRLwb1J/wBZG4bbmrkLxnNbKDKQvzxEpclkMW0Dj0J6o7kGrmzIGGrh B+JJN99AcineHRug8ZSFIERRCmigxdhAKU0BFD7P+5HNHltSL3DF1c2fFOf2JrgB KVoE+9RhMZjWNbYetFFLCkjXb5Rpay9zeMm1DxfSTGAnuOwUXW6qq4hnl5+VC/48 ceDZElLLfu7RQUZv44pkSTOWZs+iQoJiHMFHk9wPqyB2Vok1yJ2a2j27WhXrJlPw nZbgJO5RyWDG3p/eVmpl5Uuc2dsfIpR17KnAuWpghK6V+cyFncDoGCl/YG2Mvool sW08FiZh3Ej4dnJjj25TZkeFG74JJDXLvMYpJfSBGnmETv4Dhcm2xPqVMuFuL1qJ lMbVLrMo2GXeo03OzNyvbs+u8WLIaGm5hC7N1CXY8wZs4jo6OJ/expvnc07dEuws 4zT3AiWv3nIouWReRStZy9QkavDocqbyPmilcdPCYk4BsOlzpwwO74hNG7iyl0Kd AlwTxGQ7y0rJou6HYa1TmRhIEr3vKvlW+JfUUrqtjXgsuacTXo4+Ira2JUErL2cY zQMq1j4r1ZyhFnuz93s7Rsx/Nw0+0YuJAZwEEAEKAAYFAlvFx+UACgkQajsROTyk rWCJqwv+NLVPE4sD4sDA2/6Ek7UsRIUkg+S39fhqWsLc4rtw/mDunv8Un61I3K04 fZ2Ry4nF9hZM0a710UvXFbStvrzRJO3EAAcdJR9LTCd19e8UeruQbIee3YT91U4N kC9JMpecfq62/teOAU2e5P3fWYaLs5ZX7zCLwWuBcW2l3SyoljQczM85HhJ3XHm+ FnwQ6D9xRle+lvWTcuC9d1yAyUb8IOospcL2lJTmy8e3r79R24hPlSB4LDe0wEN8 AXbagrcAQZjwyaHyWxjJbTwZ0b43WGdfIqZ1ElOeoffbketPGRmWvx5xUvb2ALFB BdETzV270gs5XDJgJ1SIIKOyDADxwvroTe2jD8C/841eEql5QSow3s/U3zRqk3mt tto8Qw/DN71aeh6dmYSsvd2UjsHw/vofOPRBGxZLEkKTEvMnhmMW9hiKPkPia+Qg evYE020qpKSxLEdWA8nprHwxmGiDNesCfXSC6vm1qfyj5g8HzxSckq9ZaMhKMCo7 vxflUEDuuQINBFo9UDIBEAD6DdHQfMav8OXfhjTteoarOrlJTSdci727xiezGPuB HmpvceBRZgRasdbaMc4HJee+R9+5x/nLPCuy/DxDyIjwIUeJNgc+l7LjI9WfpHTD 8U4xxjvR5Mi7+ToQQUOUNuzT0O0pyuxP1uY3RehHEhOVfBZO59ipSeZL5iQC6T5M sK1SKfs51pLa5ToC1rc8tBJ4zZmxRAyZiYc/AH2uZ/6rYjTTkAn1DVI9DYo2D/zE 4bGjXdJW5pKphFB2lX3dG4I7ODi+5e1H6A/QpCu6z8/ZkIQ+9T1xcX/YwiFeA7Pb TuW/eITbMbI1eV3+fyym9aT7Rsflmp31Zxtr+sZwGGZf00ooMBFmqOS//NUQ/Vf3 vDUew1h5QU1yDaWT3NApvi+XWPH9TPy6TMfZA2FThHf11sX/gDBa5JWQZbptPEcm oazpiKZt91CrFPOaoXDPck/Q61dfmr/oPikfByYnASIM3OwEuXqyQ9JDRfKrem5r +oA/wxWb5jELElAhOpnyqMMvOh7uz1foUssL8MAv2TGXmxpVJ8Nu4je6wf96Z22f Q0D38zud+CKH3bMP3ayXXJBcdPoENrzFbWP5FTg/4TTDJ3vOAHZR5iCunYghx8b7 Ffa4UbkwlD+dh8GiIAtvT51Ac0cO0Wc0Zjc57zPUz1zloMbf+zb1Bsn7DuEQoqj1 gwARAQABiQIlBBgBCAAPBQJaPVAyAhsMBQkJlCYAAAoJEFqy+vF7FyvqrC8P/1tF 6TeR83xD6MasqXyrBjwcLmziaF0Mlkj8k/YUiZ/knb53n97xQnh9yxPv0TT8Wpfd n3BmvqGyh8+ouHX9jMOxiRkMdNhIauVYY/8jmRfBSYWcFkfMzdYasvdLtmYJgx25 2HKTFdeOrszoOjWjEzwmh+tca3AFMu/nB++/KAmi5UJV7zsZ7uYJ5jm97LV5SLjN JIXXM+lHqCDrjDaDhNczmq1LCRlU6/WDjvkuwaVhZG4lXxMDrvKnXMkjseQ2oKjw rIdfQM86H1z5J31lfhqop+of0cimcIsBgSCPu+h96LHuAzeRBCbDKeqrfZtAZAGs okRina9947fRWxXHh3O66ILmXKNRxxWbDkPvYnQWUat8SbSTDoPWrDIGDRIAypqY o3pcN2OE0C1chqgDZQxkr+9kYZQpupOAN2TR+fM7JvbO9coKI8Uqog8CopoMeDQk d0YjcqlB1E0svODHTzcSoRzogDBYDqNLP7qVkNXpcOAXSVioBgiSDf7o5RdS/qmU yXBIeq6I5z8xBcd+BQ/n/9Frkm6K7IKP3ngUP4wEoiPx5ZE5+fPIScGmVUcZIMhk vMvem9XXh1yyhqN14gfjmLwPGdWbrgG8QUe0s2WeWIyss6uTiyF+ZbJSo2XOKVc3 YFMVUUfgyudqAV1wWdZinUk+H3pkqOKoHAy/8fST =3DYzQY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------038BEF898211683F967C95BB-- --tjoSqmFEVtp8XXYhqX9eEbwLyYZd0Mx7C-- --DHmlW0cc6R1XtiSzrqWyqaypBximPOTqG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEW7Wm6ldl0sWGPK4nWrL68XsXK+oFAl9F1C0ACgkQWrL68XsX K+o+JQ//fUSoy35hRAS/mOsNgwgYwFfmiZgJpepVG+vaZenVei25R+XnMMpe+Fm8 5u6gHjqndAxx5RgEMoOs31ZwiqLrtf04aqQsC4l3+zo8eHFRBMpEqfKjaFtbJKEu hNEoBhJq6diG3n1lD03os2UoLDvSet97SWPfx1jJBS9llqyhXlRH5hI4d/pUhjIa 0OPdJR1/rzIoekkiyWxPIHDKiW3Ca1sF0RYQHgQkUPODYg2luy396rIUBw0+SZQD JLyc1n7euD7vdEBvy0zRKusKdrb2Uibl9bCKy2rTec6H9hcOwGEf3EthmN3NxHkr inUXfbD1Wz4SrfIVtsyuA7joa6PP1aA14CDWf7Ixv1Tuuy+i1GpyFPRmxa1pIapn x8sUG5x/1NVLN8cPAjiisH9JBjLS0fmeXJKQ6fExpoKq0TiDf7fF3LRvpCDAMq0A iWJdFNWMsGDgUp6wT+GQgM1xYVrwh2C3MLnB4+aJuxxfysLMwktB8Vu1y2i0G4Qs UrG/i4Oi9n0ZGyW66XWAisCDxXZiTJZTEr+mjkRDg4DDOb7Nw1fbKRrelqnMJ3N5 L7a6bHb1BRNYYvnfWs5cpS21xwoDAXjlvoqpTF94mCjT6eJFKfEhMCBgRyeWm/50 tlpVewkERF29/AgnUOyKSsUDppuVTx4RnLWQ6iiyIXdCZyURsJ0= =YWYS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DHmlW0cc6R1XtiSzrqWyqaypBximPOTqG-- From nobody Tue Aug 25 20:27:11 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574203A0B03 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dEVcO54MBxhF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA1F3A086D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id j13so227500pjd.4 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/maV3ZCjFbd2Edcsy1HQbsXvByZpHRX/sdiUdQtvGWU=; b=QPhklw5M3s+GVLlI/f6BSEtia5reCI257tx8Mgi3UEIO4M9QlaKIolaeFWlPF5CFn+ 44YS7muACW7oeqU3ATUenc1JQVQDvaAzeYn8GEmm9OnIWpXI/+S+jaQUWt7Fd9kwTCFp 8dj7CmBLpVDKdBOM/eiiu8GP1AfqPFvP5kXDoteNPAYe7Ob/s+y3ABloaOT6BTHrri2e UGH9pdhGTmGj7jGlLfSs4LUSf1SWigH2V6oH3ivDASqynbnF2g4+9g0rRsfvn2/mlkIs fbUiOpiZ3dOVAQaqAKd99mP/C4DE9+kIJo/k4OXeIYCZiY8DTCxQVPirPCxD1XBBa1e/ SNrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/maV3ZCjFbd2Edcsy1HQbsXvByZpHRX/sdiUdQtvGWU=; b=fqIXfF5B6IBGAeqn5CgFTS9ENfItf/6J/nvVA2DVqyZU/JItU/0fYJNBB7Sn3ALq3g j9kteWKlDY9Iltbhxn46FcduI9XUFG1EU5aB6KzWaz7qot2WO0x7FEnuHbtPCXuaOyPT F2RiGxaJZRGzt0rD355thxeqr0XmyEHsUYURYerXeR9NhptYSijHlCH7wBWZ3oE6Voqx gQH5ZaZaVmxAfBwwCifQybm0xabzFfZtdGUfG8tPIqrYHVUaW57MTeE44uZ+9z6dsZM8 ItuNZnQbgakTLYqXLD61sCo9fcf2JoneZqnhUIdmEUgMLhgLeAqgjGWe5fGzKPD8a1hC Pwew== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oQKZpcOLjhoMU/UCwgzsasmVumuDdbkeviNViT3P1XbPAUEWv vzlgsg+uAz8Dlghha/6+6+tDHUj+BjyPog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAeueOi7eLTawATdYquS6zvElUIkfr1JBpWzE6mPzN27m93XCXT0ujJz+OQAX2vGAZJi4cmA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d90e:: with SMTP id c14mr10297443plz.76.1598412427215; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm447160pjm.3.2020.08.25.20.27.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:27:06 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind , rfced-future@iab.org References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <9baad897-1901-e911-dce6-3a755d765ef5@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:27:02 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A99A95D-364C-42B3-AD5B-5622C667A164@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 03:27:09 -0000 On 25-Aug-20 19:15, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Brian and thank you for your draft. One clarification question: > > >> >> The second point is not so much the IAB's workload as whether the IAB should need to deal with this whole class of issue at all. Now that we have the LLC in place, why should the IAB spend any time on what is basically a distraction from the technology? Just because the IAB has done this for the last 25+ years isn't a reason. I'd like the IAB to be able to focus on Architecture. That's been my preference for 25 years, too ;-). > > > Why did you choose ISOC and not the LLC Board? Because the LLC is a contracting-out company for IETF tools and services, and the LLC Board is mandated to oversee that work. ISOC is a civil society organisation with very general goals for the good of the Internet, so I believe it is a more suitable place to oversee consensus formation for the community. Brian From nobody Wed Aug 26 02:46:12 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5D73A1148 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=HOs9jA7h; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=h6auEMnf Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDVPhY0rxNBh for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F7C3A1147 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD55D68 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 05:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 05:46:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=nInQp0Mk/dC6N7WHWFu8bYohgnmFbFo XKTP5qfCuOw8=; b=HOs9jA7hhmARepW/e1Ip9rVH3B4o5jAx0z38Ahn0egKa02U YFQGkdF5P/fTxWbNH0uvS+2KOXNNcm2ox6Y4b/Dvo7QrYBgFapV+HnSJuLlvbzgF +poEFA/mgbUAxM1zYCmL9tzM40eyXdl45MI91QHc+Sn4awkWD9SBm9H7+yPazr0z 5O1WyqqDM/DFADaawalA9ja//mJNYl7+WihUcXYX/cQ+6UTdSMqmtTLQ9vGlM/TJ T679DykBVb5fbRRx3QzFNc82ohtzZIHS+VTkNiSp/ovNuoBB00H3+nNqM9pnO/Yj icuwuLip/wnrYWbMP6mh5eC2chEkAdKyagvFRdw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=nInQp0 Mk/dC6N7WHWFu8bYohgnmFbFoXKTP5qfCuOw8=; b=h6auEMnfMA+j0YK7hDYaJp h8r1vmnOtrUy5gh4qZsNu8ypg4nTFDYHsid6b401NezBrLi5gXp8VgNVhdbkCcJa RUnECwtGtFmhSW9+LfVBMWZea+SgTIJQl8mwdB8SB9ziNhjTU6GNZsJVLSiMgKo/ xOOLsy4ATKrK+1CQSxmc7oAj12t+evLAVWZCO+mWbhZ+WakWDFEJQlfZR77nIw4i WRLcpLNoiGH7WSVJs+gCAW3Hv4MTbrE32ZITFd6itn45xWCSmyj1hPhqiMMvBc9F MNGStP4Lgh+b8k3MYo4pNhzOjWLwXZJnQhkQRIXeiaVoF9MoQqTpAV+MGviE8yuw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddvvddgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 804D620107; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 05:46:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-232-g4bdb081-fm-20200825.002-g4bdb081a Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:45:46 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:46:11 -0000 On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, at 13:17, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > * no body with closed membership > > I kinda get that, though your terminology is a bit > odd, e.g. the membership of the LLC board or IAB > are both closed though anyone can volunteer in the > nomcom process for (almost all of) those seats. Yes. I'm most concerned about placing any decision-making authority in such a body. At least as far as those things in scope for this work are concerned. We could likely do better with IAB, IESG, or Trust in addition, but those are not bodies under examination. > > * no tenured, employed, or contracted "leader" > > I do not get that. Can you say how you conclude that "discussed/resolved > in public" implies the above? I don't see it myself TBH. Any authority vested in an individual (perceived or otherwise) presents the ultimate opportunity for deliberations and decisions to occur without public discourse. Whether we as a community tolerate "I thought about it" any more than "we discussed it" is the ultimate decider, of course. Given that we have far better alternatives than these options, I'd rather pursue those. And as I think I've said before, longevity is grounded in culture (broken as ours seems to be in so many shameful ways, I might readily concede), not as a result of placing our faith in champions or heroes. From nobody Wed Aug 26 08:18:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D7D3A1583 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V76Sm1olEY6o for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B4123A1582 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id o12so2138586qki.13 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=NUN2diSBxpdUMwwIj5cVOZ7jDEP/LyXUNgmeH0TLZcY=; b=AtJVZUEDzsP2yeDsijX8bJYeyMeaupugRD19pAF62/gx3mx5lTbqTUPQtyYzzxwKJW Zkzu1vV/hurmdLM4I6ueMyXdGLUujGz9AxXrcjSBK9m8AQtIvd1BrNGAp532IEvS8MaN S3Gy/vOccdtL/Xt5aKgJyyVXNISI9ajIIPr5hA+KQuQ8P0NJRJJeEDtMPx0DtmRA5WK/ awocBo9DRkbl8u/4F0Dp9YQSFfpgftwOI3r+kR7f2ZVDUg5I2dF4HthDsx2OZCijuOcV 01HxJIExkg2DpMUq0Xvk0BTnP+c92AjSM2BOHNRUXuBCWgso0/ICJd42jF9/7i5V9+Tu MUyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=NUN2diSBxpdUMwwIj5cVOZ7jDEP/LyXUNgmeH0TLZcY=; b=bGpHFZFiOuo9ocr00mL3H3C77KG1vcj7ihCL+w85q3uVM32/pKOtPKvejYOI/k3mgS afI4zotMz1hI+ZoqXfuRsWixjIZ8nnXxSA6wDich8GREa0zSqihEljVOfcFTyVaT2jPl JDNR5oNLMH7K/5ZIcKVv9wgYzernof87/4GSIp6+AHPVSROoTn+IR45uQ/jJEI1Kjfea wYoVrAJSqu4cx+lujuugS1/L4pyt3H42xxMsY5JdfGFzChBEbQ5i4qQDtB5odQfoW2zY OdOmy8B/OOyIGRFl9Wv7Z0R4bn80AN+4ZznumOScdHBIdD5Sje77JGLm06mCNJIR6M1B Zn6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310CAHaWYx5TbOgkU241EvWRJhhUoBJ2pBe49ptmOxKKWIXE2cX Di1mTLzJmjlNwcYakSlHlQL8LsJV2H5fnoEzhCQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybWLiP4g+odBLCHDyPAzsRWu1snu++Rfic0cdom+1hm36iqysaoqemVcghPD22YSU4ObdbGw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:8203:: with SMTP id e3mr14797899qkd.437.1598455082859; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t186sm1745123qkc.98.2020.08.26.08.18.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:18:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:18:01 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:18:06 -0000 46 hours! :-) On 8/25/2020 1:49 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-08-24, at 19:34, Michael StJohns wrote: >> My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and defend each comma and clause. > I’ll try to avoid clause numbers and commas, then. > > Summary: I have much less of a hard time imagining this structure to work than the other two that have been presented. > > A few thoughts (but not many, as this is so close already): > > I think we can live without the description of the previous RSE disaster as “IAB’s missteps” — that is behind us. There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB.   I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?" > > I’m not sure "the smooth functioning of the operation and evolution of the RFC Series” is covering the whole gamut (see my point “reputation”), but maybe that is just an issue of integrating with 8728. (I wouldn’t mind having fostering reputation listed as an explicit objective, possibly using a different term if needed.) I agree, but I think its sufficient for the discussion period. > > (The ISE *is* a stream manager, and with ES, the RSE is as well, so there is a small terminology problem here with the I* stream managers and the managers of a stream.) Well, no.   The ISE and RSE are Stream editors, and that includes the duties that stream managers have.   The stream manager job is a lesser included occupation. > > Do we have enough material in 3 how we plan to keep the RSEB and its members free of IT project management duties? I think so.  The contract management stuff is solely the purview of the LLC.  The day to day project management duties either stay with the LLC or devolve to a CM selected by the LLC.  The RSE OPTIONALLY may end up as the CM for the RPC and related tasks, but that's dependent on whether project management of that type is in the person's fulfilling the RSE role wheelhouse.  We may end up with an RSE who declines that piece, and another who embraces it. Or the LLC may choose to keep the role irrespective of the person filling the RSE role. Mike > > Grüße, Carsten > From nobody Wed Aug 26 08:34:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D430C3A15A5 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvesn7UuuwIJ for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2293A159D for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id u3so2218770qkd.9 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=d5NFVr7I5b1wTsJCs3HZjvTBYi8lxaNpZP1gN777UbI=; b=rlPkfk7fN6PxoiiqS1MLFfFJiscnkIvJexggmyHyys2zGaKveOJvzCWvdERAL37hvp 04K+K03+RQnlN7e/GqvfopLH96jim6LdS2K2kEzIyHDufwiNi+m/xZQNvBVY1HbmkyG4 f8WcuTNTYH3bz5FMKrwK1BkG8YhGi1+f+DWbAWZOuOorrWrT8b70TwM8MTHt2SAZZoiR mav0WNIcHpW4D+r/wDBeIKr03q9lHO+nVGD7Wt5Vpte1MpUbj2IKTalbxsBZIMEMRg7y QEvlwEwvLAK838rkijCahJEoLycqd8730x0NaY9sslhc4fU6dy/o75Mt6bz/BOAMcrdw St6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=d5NFVr7I5b1wTsJCs3HZjvTBYi8lxaNpZP1gN777UbI=; b=W3OAnezJkesuUXgJ9xr0ZBlS1Nqzaq/E95/xa+TY8I7FIXrH8IdYPsjAnyKp5kCZ8t HuAIwDLcg4mtVdWeM9cMfKTvagepD3bBO0xOUle5Dtm///g2XccVgtluzOQUgmEcLsBn eyAjwFyicTYa6qvj848aXtnimmd1n7eDbCCX1hDlvA7t40+u26Ltn0LGCfOeY2+0VP4f eUxyhJbmSPFh5CJBtd17OZUr6p2JKnh5TG11K9LX478CkEIMjKqZpxcy7l1DYLJNd6aB ydYxQmwv1kWpj/ddcAyBcrILujUSLq7PULMtLSTNUWzfWDRHbB8XnQ6HXvHT1m8NBkvb xf8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Lkpm2WCj8WUMDfOt2cJVRJccuidOCFT9B4h1vIpeRr5Gn7aDY H7GMS01LTQhVW0qPvcsVTlOTJtjmHwEs354CKQo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqBCJ3h+m5NdJOxSPQVkVwbEsMQ3Bbw3DsHz+VHqlXMcXNvWy8xpgrMV2tKcSRh0FZkDhZdw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:6557:: with SMTP id z84mr12349143qkb.12.1598456092787; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a3sm2243928qtj.21.2020.08.26.08.34.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:34:52 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:34:56 -0000 On 8/25/2020 8:19 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for writing this down. I have some questions: De nada. > > 1) It is not fully clear to me who is responsible for making strategic decisions. Is that the RSEB or is the RSE having the final decisions and the RSEB is more advising the RSE? In the final analysis, it's the RSEB as they have the approval authority over the Editorial series.   The model here is that we hire the RSE to do the drudgery of framing the strategy and writing it down, all the while working with RSEB to get something they're willing to sign off on. It's also true that the majority of the RSEB minus the RSE may write something down and approve it without the RSE's sign off. > > 2) Also related to the point above actually, why is it enough to have "at least one stream manager member and one At-Large member [...] to give their consent for any document to be published” instead of having the whole RSEB agreeing to it? That's not what the note meant.  The majority of the RSEB has to sign off on a document.  It's just that a majority means 5 votes which generally means that those 5 will include one stream manager and one at-large member.  (It also means I can't do basic math because its possible to have RSE, ISE and three at large or RSE ISE and three stream managers sign off - I'll remove that next version.)   Generally that was meant to imply that the stream managers would always get a say.  If you count the RSE and ISE as stream managers (as Carsten suggest), they always do. > > 3) Why are the RSE and ISE the chair and vice-chair? These are the only two members which do not have a term limit and I would fine it actually an important feature especially for a chair and vice-chair to have a specified term length and ensure there is a way to “replace” that person if the community is not happy about decisions made. The form of this is meant to parallel the form of most editorial boards.  In those the actual editors set the agenda and drive the process.   The RSE and ISE are there as de jure chairs because that's what I believe the roles require for this process to be successful. With respect to replacement, Adrian has it right.   Fire the RSE if "the community is not happy about the decisions made" - or basically fail to renew the contract, or replace your stream manager, or talk to the Nomcom about the at-large members, or to the ISOC.  Or fire the ISE.  The RSE can't make decisions in a vacuum, and the RSEB is accountable as the RSE or ISE. I will note that the RSOC chair is still there and I'm part of the community that is not happy about the decisions made, so I'm not really sure that its a useful consideration. Later, Mike > > Mirja > > > >> On 24. Aug 2020, at 19:34, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb/ >> >> My intent is to ignore comments for a few days rather than jump in and defend each comma and clause. >> >> Basically, this mostly leaves intact the operation of the RFC Series Function while splitting the functions previously held by the IAB into two specific ones: Strategic evolution of the series goes to a purpose built organization - the RFC Series Editorial Board, while the contractual nitty gritty of paying for things gets firmly homed under the LLC. >> >> Enjoy - Mike >> >> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Wed Aug 26 08:44:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460DF3A15BF for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wAvj3JQb3BjX for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D41A73A15B5 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id t20so1694910qtr.8 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=EiGKQCDwyyGmvcdd6pOCisl1B1O8p+kSdBQGaCGZ+LU=; b=zipK/S5Rvsfff2kyHpaenOIKZcpchg9G6DRHvn6MWgaLDfuwJ5cNX7VJgKUioxuHzl kvgkGmcE4DZktYaESqHq//N69NEFmkKWjC/YgJnTEuv/spKScETgLgqV+fVl44DvCTWo S7jhI8boJMg4PK7dANy9oMlCs1ZlPH1yOpaLfV8q6oBTSlnlJS+pqbfGBCWrqFxrB+h/ I86p8b5nSjWC7J1r/9kXYDhBgfHMaqyWKtoJRgNwdW7agjp09zJoCrP3wXQT8LoQQGe5 AcyILi7fdb+kHfZ6JyZNb8116mfy9JEuZaqZ9bvrb1Ew6buVrdW4dCWeDnqocaGQxjec YIGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=EiGKQCDwyyGmvcdd6pOCisl1B1O8p+kSdBQGaCGZ+LU=; b=EmgZCR+/doihGRjI/8wWjEJME7uE5ED7tvM8WtgwYQ8BjljnAYBwyM8rxif95yUoJ5 uNjI4+EyzVHrg0nd8WhcewNf7T3UKTQXpVQnx3d7RC5baNt9M5upYwaMftYkansbLdyV Hth6XKluS7AAWYU7sFtXqmJwCrfrgHONCwzRmWUZuWcpwpdxB1mdaZGrx0TQPMWouloA z/S1PxWH7Ae8ySxZWVaapheXJKW5AvvQV/d1jQjl//mnoS4pCVHmbQXVAKleGXVtSqXs A/hn/jn8kkD64ot3OYL9VNzW6h+9+NptdLjJvZae4qBoehgwTOEen3JFpIiUx8HGW+Go GrVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320S0UxpfnhKWwfyZ9yk38sikwCEt5BqPvZ6srQR4ewKc0zawtR iw4JDFIYXFhk2Hg/V7D6rNgvR7jKmLKgiOA9eIE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3pyx2MpEjTI8wTSz7uXz1IXc9VGLWdQXe1/O8Tw0PGwUVCXEYvrKBxs/9F54mAEtO9+glIw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5d43:: with SMTP id g3mr6351565qtx.369.1598456642264; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c72sm1255645qke.78.2020.08.26.08.44.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:44:01 -0700 (PDT) To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Mirja Kuehlewind' Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <890D69A0-DB38-42E5-ACDE-62906AB207AA@kuehlewind.net> <0b7501d67ade$1072dda0$315898e0$@olddog.co.uk> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:44:01 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0b7501d67ade$1072dda0$315898e0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:44:05 -0000 On 8/25/2020 8:48 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Mirja, > > I think this discussion is making some progress towards discovering what we want to achieve. > > Just pouncing on one thing, and asking a question for clarification... > >> 3) Why are the RSE and ISE the chair and vice-chair? These are the only >> two members which do not have a term limit > While what you say is true, there are two mitigating factors: > 1. There is a 'convention' that the ISE agrees a two year term with the IAB as part of appointment. This ensures a degree of commitment to continuity on both sides which is (I think) important for the role. (The RSE was, of course, covered by a contract with duration and renewal terms). > 2. In the case of the ISE, the IAB is allowed (should be encouraged!) to replace the ISE if they are underperforming or if there is significant disquiet from the community. (The RSE was subject to 'termination' per the contract.) Yes, exactly. > >> and I would fine it actually an important feature especially for a >> chair and vice-chair to have a specified term length and ensure >> there is a way to “replace” that person if the community is not >> happy about decisions made. > I think there are a couple of things buried here: > - Do the chair/vice-chair make decisions are chair discussions? We're back into "who's in charge" and "just a contractor" implications when we have those discussions.  Instead consider "what makes the best sense for the conduct of the business of the RSEB and RSO"?  In this case, the RSE is hired with the intent that they're going to be the ones doing most of the donkeywork of documentation production, framing the strategy, explaining what can and can't be done, and mostly making sure progress is made. > - Is there a distinction between chair/vice-chair term length and > RSE/ISE term length? (Agreeing that if the chair/vice-chair is by > definition the RSE/ISE then there is no practical difference.) Yup. > - Would you expect that the need to replace the chair/vice-chair > could ever not extend to the need to replace the RSE/ISE? In > other words, might the problem be limited to fulfilment of the > chair/vice-chair role while other aspects of the RSE/ISE work > continued to be good? This might come down to whether you > define being the chair/vice-chair as fundamental functions of > the RSE/ISE or whether you say, "Oh we also need a chair/vice- > chair, so let's make use of the RSE/ISE." Yes.  Both of those.  We need a chair to make sure business is done, and it's pretty fundamental that the RSE has the most skin in the game in getting the business done.  Or to put it a third way - if the RSE's contract performance is dependent on the performance of the RSEB, then we will probably continue to have problems. Last one: For the cases where the RSE role is vacant, having the ISE step in and steer appears to make sense, rather than scrambling with the "would volunteers from the RSEB take one step forward to serve as chair" and watching them all take one step back. Later, Mike > Best, > Adrian > From nobody Wed Aug 26 09:09:06 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443F03A1621 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U0B4Kw2EnVka for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC4F3A15D1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7459100a5f54af7c8e11f4d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e745:9100:a5f5:4af7:c8e1:1f4d]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kAxyn-0001Vd-A1; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:08:53 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:08:52 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598458138;f7bb1e28; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kAxyn-0001Vd-A1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:09:05 -0000 Hi Mike, hi all, > On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should = be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that = there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB. = I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian = of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?=E2=80=9D Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I=E2=80=99m = well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I=E2=80=99m = uncertain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with = another body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by = even larger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed = as well. So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very = satisfying if someone just says =E2=80=9Cthere have been problems with = the IAB, so let remove the IAB=E2=80=9D. I would rather like to better = understand what you think the problems have been and how they are = addressed by your proposal. I do have my own thoughts but I first would = like to understand the thoughts of those people who have thankfully = written down a proposal. Mirja From nobody Wed Aug 26 09:45:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32263A15F7 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iv-xlrdQjdN4 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EDA53A0E89 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse326.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.72] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx166.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kAyXv-000GkY-Ir for rfced-future@iab.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:45:18 +0200 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BcBWt0nxhzBnZ for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.18] (helo=xmail08.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kAyWf-0006Vg-Vk for rfced-future@iab.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:43:54 -0700 Received: (qmail 5391 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2020 16:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.208]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail08.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 26 Aug 2020 16:51:08 -0000 To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Michael StJohns Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: <1f74f663-392a-4e9b-c069-c60d67f2ff4a@huitema.net> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:43:54 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------80629CC440374F6499C19AC9" Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.72 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0fJi3Ojdyt5h9PLOIGvr3lipSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4jG9SQKAoI+s61LDkAjPr99QVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuEzBCgqe539x2oAbbqp81Hae42Vki7412dpbhrD2d47zbC3VvU djSCswikK/licfX+oIF6uBSWByrPG2Vxuo/vVPllrFEbCkMryfcYCsgMUJObfBQoU3roWy2GH1DY sAiH3gousbgNfxi2R3uFLvZP/HBXvrLBlKCVRjjdPbjQ4HnBNho1Lszw5OO01yYoll8q2UgzFF+j HNSbIoW1Q++Wvj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFg3eKzPG9E5MikC2dVXWcpK172i/E5sOgbaCtBiSIx 1XwCY8vmv+JqOVJamBHfOGVwjn7Xut/lXagsodd5qqODTFiwcpU4fyz75jxpU98RPGiH1Wgh6RAe nBR+licROGZNFSBymhtbd6ygEffuU1+3Lf6cmU/99wDQedNhMKpgrdvmHA0sv4dUR3sZx3src83B H1fP3YU+2XWwKzL04bcfwzQZWnqpeh+UbGCVNeqba5Xked+P+aSZU/EB7YnRWs2LBDMrD7q/cJog wbqzsuokzp42BOBtd3rreyjh9j9flE7JPy9twDyaj6un7qWOkNeNia6od60yXnS72aiw2P35couO DjyB7MBm181awJIUnXi0EW+/nh8HB0VCDAq8bK3qQUISlckFuRRUKu3hpjef647lNwN4qOsSZg+f YhVZG3Fpf9P2WwOdPRT3EWlMd754CMBw7+ErSKQN7lw8ITGaNmGHCZF9ZXtfSxIkZLsbHZnckpWa LvahyBjmQxBKOzsmHW0N+NPiHPgn+dyxhvT1Z5EPOIlpyGKEA1x50oTQDUtseoetsROuM82YMzIj 8EU= X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:45:29 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------80629CC440374F6499C19AC9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 8/26/2020 9:08 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Mike, hi all, > >> On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns wr= ote: >> >> There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should = be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that there= 's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB. I prob= ably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian of "wh= y you think the IAB is not a good choice?=E2=80=9D > Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I=E2=80=99= m well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I=E2=80=99m un= certain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with anot= her body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by even lar= ger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed as well. = So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very satisfying if s= omeone just says =E2=80=9Cthere have been problems with the IAB, so let r= emove the IAB=E2=80=9D. I would rather like to better understand what you= think the problems have been and how they are addressed by your proposal= =2E I do have my own thoughts but I first would like to understand the th= oughts of those people who have thankfully written down a proposal. =46rom my perspective, a lot of the past problems came from loading the RSE function with not just expertise on publishing issues, but also program management of the RPC and the transition to a new format. I am not aware of any issue with the publishing expertise part. I observed a lot of issues with the second part, with complaints that the transition was taking too long and was impacting the productivity of the RPC. The tension about program management would have been there whether the IAB was in charge or some other body. I appreciate the growing consensus that the RSE should have a technical advisory role, and that the program management functions should be handled directly by the LLC. -- Christian Huitema --------------80629CC440374F6499C19AC9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 8/26/2020 9:08 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:

Hi Mike, hi all,


On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:

There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB.   I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?”

Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I’m well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I’m uncertain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with another body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by even larger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed as well. So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very satisfying if someone just says “there have been problems with the IAB, so let remove the IAB”. I would rather like to better understand what you think the problems have been and how they are addressed by your proposal. I do have my own thoughts but I first would like to understand the thoughts of those people who have thankfully written down a proposal.


From my perspective, a lot of the past problems came from loading the RSE function with not just expertise on publishing issues, but also program management of the RPC and the transition to a new format. I am not aware of any issue with the publishing expertise part. I observed a lot of issues with the second part, with complaints that the transition was taking too long and was impacting the productivity of the RPC. The tension about program management would have been there whether the IAB was in charge or some other body. I appreciate the growing consensus that the RSE should have a technical advisory role, and that the program management functions should be handled directly by the LLC.

-- Christian Huitema

--------------80629CC440374F6499C19AC9-- From nobody Wed Aug 26 11:07:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63813A0FDB for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YDRMuvSDPUQ for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423CD3A0FD6 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id bh1so1261613plb.12 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=KDKBWBBFN2jsuQtiKh5xCF90PcRKttEcLFfudwYVyy8=; b=n6qZqgeg8uweupFgDfHEdf48xna5i7HBvXgSO6HaqmrUxNWukVSmogKaDBOoez1HRb FqVon7olZWSuhuipF2SqpF/m9crpfq4T5bUo3DsfJHkyHQ/qak9GcwfYai8joNgfvMkk 63jeQ8uLxT9iuhtWFlodb4RxqRMUBb5oFaswqswEJWtBJ3CMgFG19M0ttQhjU/z+SCVW b43IMLNGW2bIEctkIwgMVcYTX1GesPXJq7oEjofjZTlOgwml/z1d0sv7Sd9jAWw+dF6D yRBSLzkAoGu7aYDHYGz1bOfQawCFxESWNDPc1lsuKdVoD1wNu3HpD6t9rJE9i26515cw Ci/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=KDKBWBBFN2jsuQtiKh5xCF90PcRKttEcLFfudwYVyy8=; b=H+7lsCClgg/BZskobMdyVDlGdA3pP0IuNnS/+Ugrh+cG4DTJtO4Op1Ayoul7HVoYWq lIuJ6Jkt+0ykov+6PQYKHKswcRP7hVcTCIazykLLx5jIIm72OsEK/fMLzvjKFsYttnFy y2Kf0y56Tkn5wFk9gINHvsAB+sxUp3MjzApvQtl3lmMsmhvhBtegr3x21PpkA0ludWuO R0OueDNM9fjM6JbbZkbXf0nkz0+y04vAHL5C32SmdQqoeMxwbHQhlZrF+1jeGNxOHsLL wbU2J1XepDQpURo1RZKvkMPIEgPBluzDL98Gffq8veItnfj+UjUEaAzwaypgCUYyUYEA qNRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DZ6O/I3P50Mb0CGAH901WqCrxf4h9MKrzi97gfmcm+1HWMoVX XE4it70nhnF+tzPxD+/RG0Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDY4OvFD5SoqkN3ud5/JHliRHcHzA/Ko+4eMs/ES+QsfJUg0G39/cdUl5oi/dRTsrWlLw0vg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bd15:: with SMTP id y21mr7067642pjr.144.1598465251532; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5cca:eb5f:dec1:d533? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5cca:eb5f:dec1:d533]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g33sm2913968pgg.46.2020.08.26.11.07.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8AA783D6-D58B-47A7-8A7C-F815B433961C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\)) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:07:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , rfced-future@iab.org To: Martin Thomson References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:07:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8AA783D6-D58B-47A7-8A7C-F815B433961C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Martin, > On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:45 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, at 13:17, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> * no body with closed membership >>=20 >> I kinda get that, though your terminology is a bit >> odd, e.g. the membership of the LLC board or IAB >> are both closed though anyone can volunteer in the >> nomcom process for (almost all of) those seats. >=20 > Yes. I'm most concerned about placing any decision-making authority = in such a body. At least as far as those things in scope for this work = are concerned. We could likely do better with IAB, IESG, or Trust in = addition, but those are not bodies under examination. >=20 >>> * no tenured, employed, or contracted "leader" >>=20 >> I do not get that. Can you say how you conclude that = "discussed/resolved >> in public" implies the above? I don't see it myself TBH. >=20 > Any authority vested in an individual (perceived or otherwise) = presents the ultimate opportunity for deliberations and decisions to = occur without public discourse. Whether we as a community tolerate "I = thought about it" any more than "we discussed it" is the ultimate = decider, of course. Given that we have far better alternatives than = these options, I'd rather pursue those. How is this different from the current IETF Executive Director? Seems = to me that is setup in the way you describe. Bob >=20 > And as I think I've said before, longevity is grounded in culture = (broken as ours seems to be in so many shameful ways, I might readily = concede), not as a result of placing our faith in champions or heroes. >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_8AA783D6-D58B-47A7-8A7C-F815B433961C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAl9GpOAACgkQrut0EXfn u6g2sAf+M3jtExwF1roH4Pywo9ZV5mi4ZmBbTVPZY8f4wcQGYD0oXFcStphxF3KQ +qQqy9sVxc9i13WhMsRde4YK2Ky9F6z7AuyCd/3RcmO9pNM+Q5iQJ6Hmpjb/ezfr CNuFZKNkdiORVxAeQUpMUS9EXvI4nBliepNBJ9Rty2NGzDDYdzUjhXYM0f8Y4s+Y 2Fbb4PTxv7ITryNLAs2hBvS5//6s8A95XjJgtMPGR0GiZussmUNCKlLaQ3WNkNSB UWC46zkZNAQl6AWl9lEpaS7u1wYmNc7RC1fFwuyvkeu4Kcf4fEgStu5/yflAdqiz ylea1mfYOMj6M5u3rqtdr3UldwzHIQ== =r9q7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8AA783D6-D58B-47A7-8A7C-F815B433961C-- From nobody Wed Aug 26 11:55:06 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C2E3A0813 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:55:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qeLYTEKFu0Xi for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AA483A081C for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 07QIsvPw086593 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:54:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1598468099; bh=FdWeciT18Qpl1RBEYyiGTYLQlbVtxaHkubitX7N2/W8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=V2Ju8LEaSevBxH8Ycv875voqw55WAcS5EfTUQ/zQn7y9u1KrrChZAhqapd9B5N42N eWmLHEARzXTYT27NOhyTQcTm0tp3Gg7gZziTO3nh3FNs2Mw2rkJlRDqRERECFZAHvg TYdexGa42SJcp95mh2mwuS5QoSMXJCos+Tni6tdk= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: Bob Hinden , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:54:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:55:05 -0000 On 8/26/2020 1:07 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > How is this different from the current IETF Executive Director? Seems to me that is setup in the way you describe. I'm not sure how useful it is to tease apart how corporate governance differs (both legally and functionally) from document publication, but this question seems like a distraction from the topic at hand. /a From nobody Wed Aug 26 19:16:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12D03A0C66 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xTEJyEqVlZl for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D87553A0C5B for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id u20so2295415pfn.0 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HI0pc0488Meok3djt0D8evxiBafPjf2KoUlr7U9t2as=; b=q8lFyoRKKSzOeBHywFTlNVVXMRbWhR+XJNQ23/+0TEbpTstndDhFLWSZTZt0IpuC5B ZuSM0NolZPJfZn14df3NQGdwL0+Kmelf6Qm+9iyN/dCnxYk2qWNDw6wnXMfY0Ch97Cqn Zr2WQQolE2UDH9XiRSVw3cxD3j2jqEv0XdfT0lpJJhf722gRCHeO/BJlfxiEARgLpsj8 jYigA/5GRK9G8Q/p+69LB/91uWBlxGqWRKzxLnNVWeSaXEvnojmV5HptFYgLpx8uuUsg vEfa6we6wtQQrtP6zkqxOrbxp7I9p6dUEgM5Sgy68+L8Mnpicsj0aPS+VaI+U83C60/g zpdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HI0pc0488Meok3djt0D8evxiBafPjf2KoUlr7U9t2as=; b=MzbSPQeBehQ5m61ztOTKGhbXIxdqXyuwmSq3I+Fl4fMyBKk83D62EduvL5Vkw4rKcn 9/HiiQygONuoPOS59Wnjm2JDhC5ABFepBHFoKjoikpJkahs8Ws0nTtj7yyDuYft+kmHu 615ecsa6Tv9lRsxEkx/85ExP4V/4fMFPkQmPhELy5eyuYxrO5ASjvLMpM4E8SU9mGWbR 6mEw7LHRvlOgQwMlDh4yETZGAw9HExk+MaC92mQCvT2yQnlelLhX+6ZOm1r/kkCuu8O9 Sx1PNOJxpDqYm90OTVQXUlxVb4vhXFsTNtoJK5b+NkkePuSBhhlCbTAqb5vmaoGecrvW hDoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JFfNdvFm9UTdTmbgcq2bqrgWLQGPFfN0BjOQVyEp4azN6Dl7f QJB6muS1RsNnvUIi1T5htXZ/moxj2/1CZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGPEdauF9MdRw36fKSvHhu4IrOQRsofjAE/7UPUJIKRFNze7j9fPeVzFhAI/YgtoLP28ZQ9A== X-Received: by 2002:a62:52d6:: with SMTP id g205mr15051343pfb.144.1598494608821; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y7sm316951pgk.73.2020.08.26.19.16.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:16:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Adam Roach , Bob Hinden , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:16:44 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 02:16:51 -0000 On 27-Aug-20 06:54, Adam Roach wrote: > On 8/26/2020 1:07 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> How is this different from the current IETF Executive Director? Seems to me that is setup in the way you describe. > > > I'm not sure how useful it is to tease apart how corporate governance > differs (both legally and functionally) from document publication, but > this question seems like a distraction from the topic at hand. I certainly can't speak for Martin, but he and I do seem to agree that there is a big divide between specified and contracted-out services, and strategic and policy choices. Specified and contracted-out services fit well with the LLC and Exec D model; after all, that's what the LLC was designed for. But questions like "Should we use MS Word as the only tool for preparing RFCs?" are not ones for the LLC Board or the Exec D. The old RSE role was a bit ambiguous from this point of view, and IMHO remains so in draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb. My solution to that is to make the role clearly advisory; Martin's is to scrap it. Brian From nobody Wed Aug 26 20:22:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AE53A0CB8 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LnvL_bQUn3q for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B863A0CB1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 07R3LxgZ067621 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 22:22:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1598498522; bh=N0LTP8h8d1Llw+JobqVw+A3GWeIq98YHgtjQv+BxeMg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BCcwDTaEz4chXtGXS8ucdeRPLMeTGz/lObsDPhnKtfN4mJ5X84PYa6p6oAVnQWdR1 meSUxIO6g8ovJ6xwoZTnIbw/ir3wu3L0tAUH5kZdwlTcd/Lknk8UO5GQooxmAE3Ced oMG6gP7mpPfa4D954PeOaWdza5CDpq0Hm9uG9KjE= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: Brian E Carpenter , Bob Hinden , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 22:21:54 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 03:22:08 -0000 On 8/26/2020 9:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > The old RSE role was a bit ambiguous from this point of view, and IMHO > remains so in draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb. My solution to that is to make > the role clearly advisory; Martin's is to scrap it. I agree that this ambiguity is Bad, with a big B. I don't have strong feelings about the two options you describe here, but I think the approach likely to yield the best result isn't "let's assume there is a position here and then define what they do" as much as "let's figure out what the things that need to get done are, figure out who does them, and add some new role if and only if there is a clear gap." /a From nobody Wed Aug 26 20:41:54 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B85D3A0CC9 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lCL5H_XjbcnY for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C533A0CC6 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id 2so1905584pjx.5 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gajIDImplGY23znu/bm/fjopihOPTgg2UYPL75ELicM=; b=ViBprHAd/VMxvvsxGQL6mmOFKl2VScT3dklieBp/aHHwx+ltzo26x2UuXSRkKDLmfr CwBin/3Ej3rXt9eoU9SG9YupD9Dl9KusRONDA7rf/wQNQXddjQtdq/As950mK1bc1y2Z Rm71t26YlRHSIMFMQxdieku9f1r4I9oRRbMADaox+hhM9FBHJU44gLu9uuunQMUG+57h mUHabUuVU1y3qCWSDaT7OLojLwo4k/hqh42ToVq1nf6GiftMlvTKpmfoHZHCKh8Za1jX X6n8gz7NFzSClo9m/BZW3gr47poCwiyYNRsKczXDWx6d23dtH+4JbKFEEBVUizbGyxNi mTgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gajIDImplGY23znu/bm/fjopihOPTgg2UYPL75ELicM=; b=AlXGoBJP2sxj7775sAY0A8nCo1u/PhPYJFlOaa7avCUpItvEk4GoBghW0kV92S73je H57OsiDmnS4EaN5xnN/rLHzZ8ouEon14L9vSxp3xBES86doFX3xvEZaIMvY88w6XpVHy 8WM1VO9a3HTZvbivbZMq8391JD2B6HfZVFIBVguP9OXiNhtE7K/Kda9l+3ml4OXezPUF Maa8+ika4kTtr0GxjxpWaXZObJj9qDmsbTuPVABmCUcF3t4gIkh1dnuO5ii6kGzC+dcw gId3mQIUEx9/SSRHy+dla2ISPPg7yzgMdI49q405Qdx7yPtbi8lrg+13xqFIX/pbiIcF EWWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Lx/AzsxM0OtXVa3l2nTCNvR9U4WYH7nkjAYRBMq0yY7NFsUyX alsjnUk36G/Ht2kNqWwKAcsXKez2zrWsaQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/461VKlw/n6MjfuKvtDv4hdddJTGVTICLJlLvUSsOLl4d2xhdlG7yYnmuaDn8jdrabDErtw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b10a:: with SMTP id z10mr3303567pjq.102.1598499709125; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x28sm716463pfq.62.2020.08.26.20.41.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:41:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Adam Roach , Bob Hinden , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <957bb038-5bc1-3253-9469-8bf26ccec264@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:41:44 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 03:41:53 -0000 On 27-Aug-20 15:21, Adam Roach wrote: > On 8/26/2020 9:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> The old RSE role was a bit ambiguous from this point of view, and IMHO >> remains so in draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb. My solution to that is to make >> the role clearly advisory; Martin's is to scrap it. > > > I agree that this ambiguity is Bad, with a big B. I don't have strong > feelings about the two options you describe here, but I think the > approach likely to yield the best result isn't "let's assume there is a > position here and then define what they do" as much as "let's figure out > what the things that need to get done are, figure out who does them, and > add some new role if and only if there is a clear gap." Asked and answered in my draft: "Much of the strategy will be concerned with the technical needs of the streams or with other matters that protocol engineers are competent to discuss. However, some matters will arise that are questions of technical editing, publishing, archiving, etc. Protocol engineers cannot be assumed to have the necessary expertise for these topics. Therefore, an outside RFC Series Advisor (RSA) is needed." I have to say that this reflects my experience as a member of the existing RFC Series Advisory Group over a number of years. We have areas of ignorance, for which we need expert advice. Brian From nobody Thu Aug 27 16:31:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC803A1411 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=ZAnZAx7J; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=uvNfPIui Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxPHylxPHWEa for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E1D3A140E for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8350D5C0212 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:31:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=QRRebqySmFNyMIpaKU1FWv5eaoLqQJO vLo3/oJFVIgo=; b=ZAnZAx7JmtAtDwQr4pIPC+3LyN5k8lJAJBWzMyEKMhiyT1V HCMrc/GJmwVsSgiyE9SP9jZmM4uCWZAUjWKICFEPT2xDVubxXnuAJwsuF2DKCEVw jYc3okR1RDPoEfLunXoEBkUMCY7Acc9R9oLv30VXN6iOLY24yluY/snBmRqbUi2H tI4VulpnAs3NY3BcI/8JjfkidKV6MVJVd3jj28LlIDVkImBBggAqf7+s+OWLhbOh duISuCiamU3xP4GqF10xfS9R16/Vf17E21VlXKyhhl1K2VNwOZCcVyIwKYhCZT5R fKFw2nOXYeG7LN6TaRRlAm4DHKWGzr2y7uLyXIg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=QRRebq ySmFNyMIpaKU1FWv5eaoLqQJOvLo3/oJFVIgo=; b=uvNfPIuivSAttCNy/u8Sa6 pR34s0EpzdaIMRC5WgXgEXdLNEgRygTok1BCwcyn8Goapjf0Qs2m6iSAAUGuaEwy rB6RfLPif1rXbtoWnFDDp01Ya8VvL1+bKksXAqdmbyRbzRudamPee447c6esQ3Np G20uweBpCTJDuL+wOunZg1PrNBRpmyky6xyIqVWgtTvs4UhGmpVA8Pc+wCub8oKc d+mNq1Gcj5Mw4g9WfbSGINXQ1ofn4/axwpim6+DQGnoKFSKzfLVha6q+xKIByFJ9 oX3qXF4V0EuQzgrs4MBNqZmDtmaIt3p4tDUjG97BLy7wFuRvFdTPSi9poVBrfSQw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddviedgvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2F6332007B; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:31:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-232-g4bdb081-fm-20200825.002-g4bdb081a Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:30:58 +1000 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:31:23 -0000 On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, at 12:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > The old RSE role was a bit ambiguous from this point of view, and IMHO > remains so in draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb. My solution to that is to make > the role clearly advisory; Martin's is to scrap it. I would characterize it as the difference between a permanent role vs. an ad hoc or occasional role. I'm not saying that advice isn't necessary, just not as part of a permanent fixture. Consequently, that means not making that role structural. From nobody Thu Aug 27 16:58:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC73A3A1459 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dByojPs84t37 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777343A1458 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Bd06v1dxNz6GD8W; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1598572711; bh=66YyG6ahBEyKNbdRKOxW+f//0eGZtemg053emy5zz5I=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nFmvxNUdlet/5BhiA+Bei5nyWXK51ljcdAZ366/zjotyrtrkCs4tVkOPB+pr8wetq 7mC2Wx2YO5s/xCgc/Q/LPQLZ+xEu9jEh4J/QdU2+DzNwmR3HUMguAcr3Ikbm0z4W8F vB2kdwjd5PHwIwCwrQ52tu5mj/er2KI2jrFEY2Lg= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bd06t4vwtz6GBB8; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:58:28 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:58:33 -0000 One of the benefits I see in the permanent role is taht we (as with most skilled individuals) tend to not see what we do not know. Having someone permanently part of the process to remind us of the publishing perspective seems very useful. Yours, Joel On 8/27/2020 7:30 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, at 12:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> The old RSE role was a bit ambiguous from this point of view, and IMHO >> remains so in draft-stjohns-rfced-rseb. My solution to that is to make >> the role clearly advisory; Martin's is to scrap it. > > I would characterize it as the difference between a permanent role vs. an ad hoc or occasional role. I'm not saying that advice isn't necessary, just not as part of a permanent fixture. Consequently, that means not making that role structural. > From nobody Thu Aug 27 17:04:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2D13A1553 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:04:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MMkpLimLhb-X for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0F83A14B1 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id n129so7873996qkd.6 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:03:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7Ii6FimuR+0x6NdkvvuduIcXP6lE2UdoDuwdvaRuJvw=; b=0D4cGCC0tr5PXYIBfJO/eotWyhlQJ43e23e+8AuLFH+SYPNyBQQM39FU7cWBpEYQ9Y 03rkmAEFwsKrJChowZzJ0qXx2vZFeUGOVYT1rqhUglVlnrKCrZ7A56TihjB5TgWIiXHP b53DKd6seKZJCxIAqynCOOhUl+GkbClpu8cxnvIhe0BykrcA76h7y3h7DXmMco38P5uH OLW+zbt7BD/4DJC9oJUzPTQx78RG0UWplslvva/qrCXK2hl0omEIKqVHkA6seoe0KVmo 3RhckoUH09MAM1ms6BzD9Vo45lu5ydB1TmCN5ieJkg5OXliev7hcvLVyXigP1MZOfEgh 1oIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7Ii6FimuR+0x6NdkvvuduIcXP6lE2UdoDuwdvaRuJvw=; b=iyU4N+kDTCosAOosjN9sj1W03/DVcksNc6uAOlMbtUDAChGgu2Yi9mYH0It81ErkFW KziGraNJnPTKk70+5MFr8ITUcX4cLMAALTmU8BuaNn5YNzJpJa5AzYyNGxrdN8pI6HKm iivMCJ24QP5SylEhrWkgIOB0o6g2j11SgPjzKs7S70s6+Sikz5WnqYntNXhOBUTBdECR 6gZGoT/Zf+pViog+NSn0TQURZHF7Ug7bWAHaSFnX41bSQuMvgfyraTxOlTJuhIFcx6vt eWTA+ZaIIozodetm4qHTKKGy+P6xWxRWywthE/LB+olfFftirDhMft2U8DLvW4LlnkuY vWTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532f2hB4sqvrxLAITsxSQkxLOjcFwCARKbEY4KqrNPDBmZV01ST2 9FlROpqQQy92QHgsO/if6M+zRA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOKR45nZsAzWEaAIY0GGHTWm/C2eTs4vYrVMbkjwYxjlUWGRIp7kfw7tZBnRtQWVEr5o5r2Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:21da:: with SMTP id h26mr5885121qka.482.1598573027805; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:18b:300:36ee:2d88:ee37:dee6:ec9c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 103sm3122507qta.31.2020.08.27.17.03.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Ted Lemon Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EBAA2FB-EA24-44D3-BD2A-23BE969BEFC5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.26\)) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:03:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: Cc: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.26) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 00:04:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6EBAA2FB-EA24-44D3-BD2A-23BE969BEFC5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Aug 27, 2020, at 7:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern = wrote: > One of the benefits I see in the permanent role is taht we (as with = most skilled individuals) tend to not see what we do not know. Having = someone permanently part of the process to remind us of the publishing = perspective seems very useful. There is no such thing as a permanent role=E2=80=94people change jobs, = die, etc. I think your basic point, that we want some longevity and = institutional knowledge in this role, is valid, and I support it, but = whatever is being accomplished with this role needs to survive the = person who takes it on leaving. --Apple-Mail=_6EBAA2FB-EA24-44D3-BD2A-23BE969BEFC5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Aug 27, 2020, at 7:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>= wrote:
One of the benefits I see in the permanent role is taht we = (as with most skilled individuals) tend to not see what we do not know. =  Having someone permanently part of the process to remind us of the = publishing perspective seems very useful.

There is no such thing as a permanent = role=E2=80=94people change jobs, die, etc. I think your basic point, = that we want some longevity and institutional knowledge in this role, is = valid, and I support it, but whatever is being accomplished with this = role needs to survive the person who takes it on leaving.

= --Apple-Mail=_6EBAA2FB-EA24-44D3-BD2A-23BE969BEFC5-- From nobody Thu Aug 27 17:24:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795A43A146A for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:23:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AELeEr-Xqr4G for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 840CB3A1469 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Bd0hG25d0z6GBdm; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1598574238; bh=DpBv69BfVGO45LKjbIuHlox5y8vB7jmpfBikhuAJNlE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Iw9O6y9o9I53rIZW1bVhm+0iGcUw4RUTw3uslJTLM+IdaRQMWh5lwdJK3f3+dq0jU MI9M9jp+F7INJBL6AJddAeDZLqFcG8vXQFHEaudre4zO28gcIHYtVHYLGilzcG87QD qJux6+MsScl3OcOYXw5GbtaPR4MrRyDJvCo89MqY= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bd0hF4PMLz6G9kf; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:23:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Ted Lemon Cc: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:23:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 00:23:59 -0000 Fair enough Ted. Should we use "persistent" rather than "permanent"? I was reacting to the alternative of "hire when needed" that I understand Martin to be proposing. Yours, Joel On 8/27/2020 8:03 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 27, 2020, at 7:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern > wrote: >> One of the benefits I see in the permanent role is taht we (as with >> most skilled individuals) tend to not see what we do not know.  Having >> someone permanently part of the process to remind us of the publishing >> perspective seems very useful. > > There is no such thing as a permanent role—people change jobs, die, etc. > I think your basic point, that we want some longevity and institutional > knowledge in this role, is valid, and I support it, but whatever is > being accomplished with this role needs to survive the person who takes > it on leaving. > From nobody Thu Aug 27 18:00:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABF23A149A for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oS22yILaDSD for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD9BA3A1499 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id g26so7987400qka.3 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kjOzSZAxkr2giOvba0cpQ7I1bPTloufRroygEFMrNWk=; b=YO8tqRJn5y6u0qUA20i1IRfZh5WQUgFUloiP8z8feO1DK76LAZp+RT5PuEqljFQu10 fzcs1aNVto9QdyeBih2gx7kXJBf2LPF7ocUc9TImWof5w8louJqkR4X8i7j3Y2H9Djkh 8OhAbfXJI1vGGI1zrFgDiKmRB14gRf5Mqtik9ANuD0rr2jFjMwSURstK2gxKHrc49Ozq MgpaLERkKjUYPCXpZyu3XialZqE8mHnr5gUQ0315VPOK3sdCI/fMRIPX9AWtQwYw+xDT Odauq3CAbP1qqYaVR2qbx4GttBfQBZRicHXFM10/1Do31nlCmSL5izx1wI+N4UF34+hB WZnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kjOzSZAxkr2giOvba0cpQ7I1bPTloufRroygEFMrNWk=; b=pk0b8CzU1AuNg4j09r+L/8qqK5uXWouMVPCAZq0zPtj8mtWRfjjwwz8qZKcMzOs9pz YBLGD595Hl5LGh7oQX/BTk2ocrdebKmGzLELqDJzX/C69JYvEAb72C8lPR6hPAhgCxEp 47R6v1lr8Vgjq14kh6qdVgY/28Fr+GEajMUtRdUNvBbhEkhqS3kVnMO3DOJXfQVo3+wC Y98sIY9IYG7PvspgSkEb4SRKf5qCe7bZ9cyESCybHCRipcAEmGzAjUn7f/C+RGDCoxDj kUDo5uXHFiiz3CEDZxOT9/SIxWLunLYzUFStSe3SLQkrLk+F8dA+WFEgbEMkobKQAVh4 jopg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301+sL8c1Jbb41LH+2YWogCL6AwCUFcY+rIRNT3xoJp7OCvgObA MYh+YA44ceNFhrdcRuPhu3wCUw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsx3sZF4OhhNslMHh3FYhk7U0C0wwa+lLninC2pRIRTsE/2ctuKnK4WK3gd+PKEezNnbr6gg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:24cc:: with SMTP id m12mr15245618qkn.159.1598576448726; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:18b:300:36ee:2d88:ee37:dee6:ec9c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y46sm3421943qth.78.2020.08.27.18.00.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Ted Lemon Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E904954-DED1-419E-B1FC-2DF0AB19924B" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.26\)) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:00:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> Cc: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.26) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 01:00:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5E904954-DED1-419E-B1FC-2DF0AB19924B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Aug 27, 2020, at 8:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern = wrote: > Fair enough Ted. Should we use "persistent" rather than "permanent"? > I was reacting to the alternative of "hire when needed" that I = understand Martin to be proposing. I think that=E2=80=99s good, but I think it=E2=80=99s worth emphasizing = that continuity is important in transition, not just while an individual = is on staff. --Apple-Mail=_5E904954-DED1-419E-B1FC-2DF0AB19924B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Aug 27, 2020, at 8:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>= wrote:
Fair enough Ted.  Should we use "persistent" rather than = "permanent"?
I was = reacting to the alternative of "hire when needed" that I understand = Martin to be proposing.

I think that=E2=80=99s good, but I think it=E2=80=99s worth = emphasizing that continuity is important in transition, not just while = an individual is on staff.

= --Apple-Mail=_5E904954-DED1-419E-B1FC-2DF0AB19924B-- From nobody Thu Aug 27 18:13:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074063A149D for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:13:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyLRsLNeNsnb for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ECFF3A149C for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 07S1DFp5084061 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:13:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1598577198; bh=OSCMKrsCJ9Dk04h3gaZk0Z7Q9UkXtuuXh12TwglB7Rg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=iidmujffgqN4frrkX5qGuj/1Bi5cwF49/Lw6bKin1qQo5YbbVZjl3bGTDu0sl07MJ 9jYVlp+/7OoxZll9/5/tRUcpGuLzi3RK7i6PiindJptkAcdLrVb1xuraZMATboUyh3 aTwPmMCoBSnBNACtqi0egmVFpCYFduqcRflaeS10= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:13:08 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 01:13:24 -0000 On 8/27/2020 7:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Fair enough Ted.  Should we use "persistent" rather than "permanent"? > I was reacting to the alternative of "hire when needed" that I > understand Martin to be proposing. I'm not Martin, but I'm reading his suggestion more as "specific designated person on paid retainer, who bills hours when called upon" rather than "hire when needed."  I think the former makes a lot of sense (and is consistent with how companies treat, e.g., external counsel), while I agree with you that the latter would be difficult to make work. /a From nobody Thu Aug 27 20:25:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CC93A1512 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2gHrnvIy0THQ for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D849F3A1511 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id i13so3683891pjv.0 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5l/xhsr65ZE6XHUW4vuUy7xZmnSyG7BoUJuFyQ9rd2s=; b=BWnC1KNbvXkuraVUy5M5HBmSR0glBEX9+uA/dq0YSW0tMdjxWqK9whoWJrrdeC/EH8 zvpiEXPfewraIUzfUGS2wo1uUOx2w3NC+SCqTpzfMZkNSK5Ilxs4VIDdeSZDbj26E9Ky XzbgS5CirODhlMDBTZhxVqQh+uMJc+UCkaN4t7n4zw3sgFxWG6WB5J4iq3jzCMZkSn27 TgoeHzmc+3x2LYKnB9qXc3WLJJpSJQ1XGshgMS45CI+ForfpXLxmxNTfp96E/R8B2OqI qykj8AhWAyunq9AZsRHKtoCAUA8e+zwcF72naEr/stwZhqsNmZj8uU6I0JQdvuE90C/p BskQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5l/xhsr65ZE6XHUW4vuUy7xZmnSyG7BoUJuFyQ9rd2s=; b=YCkYFzPDP61MnCBYHOdKhZQIi30DMkUrdXwc6yo0mDnvlUkGawJwolHa0IKEQS80w+ LqQ5OeJustiUBEESEzmCYgjCNZKPVSQfYyc8RsruC53dO4iWbj/oiFJfOBkhLZgO+DcZ IgVXqLLDga+QVO2ciwECD+igWkO+hR/XPo70jghAiiSQwp2zi7x4U4bGnNRTzczwIraW R/mPLoG9ugLmGn11mn91dhxW43dpDOfOsyNCixVnx1/I5dfz9u1nA+YGnDRyDmvyJf9P 0v8eeNhOA+2Ly+0y/oAC2jW9EoRfUkybJjxFxKzHKbblVoKCOjvflzV42OrELlvM0Qcs Bu3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/uq5vWLpLXVbVsXLEWqyRZM4kKygwSAFnGdQcxev/MLjZv7cZ YgYYN5gj5KYwifo4dQ2LHhA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIOwLzWO+SS+xiqO92Z3uUuyyN2U//NrRRGbpj0ZekBITmdp+1joZjxuCdNPsWgNaD9RGFnA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f683:: with SMTP id cl3mr682951pjb.124.1598585135153; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 25sm1999557pfj.73.2020.08.27.20.25.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:25:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Adam Roach , "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <89442755-dbf1-066c-6c73-f2a4b9444b3c@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:25:30 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:25:37 -0000 On 28-Aug-20 13:13, Adam Roach wrote: > On 8/27/2020 7:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Fair enough Ted.=C2=A0 Should we use "persistent" rather than "permane= nt"? >> I was reacting to the alternative of "hire when needed" that I=20 >> understand Martin to be proposing.=20 >=20 >=20 > I'm not Martin, but I'm reading his suggestion more as "specific=20 > designated person on paid retainer, who bills hours when called upon"=20 > rather than "hire when needed."=C2=A0 I think the former makes a lot of= sense=20 > (and is consistent with how companies treat, e.g., external counsel),=20 > while I agree with you that the latter would be difficult to make work.= I'm not seeing much of a gap between what I wrote ("The RSA will operate under a part-time professional services contract with the LLC...") and wh= at you're suggesting here. However, from practical experience in the RSAG I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where the RFC production people need advice come up all the time. Full context at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00#section-8 and comments most welcome. Brian From nobody Thu Aug 27 20:38:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518243A152E for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fdldN5ut5tZ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08B4D3A152C; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Daley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7DBF86E5-FD28-41EB-9BC5-B2F6A6F8F7DA" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:38:49 +1200 In-Reply-To: <89442755-dbf1-066c-6c73-f2a4b9444b3c@gmail.com> Cc: Adam Roach , "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon , rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson To: Brian E Carpenter References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> <89442755-dbf1-066c-6c73-f2a4b9444b3c@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 03:38:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7DBF86E5-FD28-41EB-9BC5-B2F6A6F8F7DA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: > However, from practical experience in the RSAG > I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where = the > RFC production people need advice come up all the time. Can I just tease this out a bit more. =46rom my limited exposure to the = process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I want a = bulleted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside the = acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG = artwork" (I=E2=80=99m exaggerating, but not by much). It is not clear = to me if this requires a publishing expert, a community process to = manage an ever more sophisticated style guide and underlying = schema/tools, or someone who is very good at saying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. = Is this the sort of thing you had in mind when you talk about continual = advice or is it something different? Jay --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_7DBF86E5-FD28-41EB-9BC5-B2F6A6F8F7DA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

However, from practical experience in the = RSAG
I think we'd need such advice more or less = continually. Issues where the
RFC production people need = advice come up all the time.

Can I = just tease this out a bit more.  =46rom my limited exposure to the = process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I want a = bulleted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside the = acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG = artwork" (I=E2=80=99m exaggerating, but not by much).  It is not = clear to me if this requires a publishing expert, a community process to = manage an ever more sophisticated style guide and underlying = schema/tools, or someone who is very good at saying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. =  Is this the sort of thing you had in mind when you talk about = continual advice or is it something different?

Jay


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF = Executive Director
jay@ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail=_7DBF86E5-FD28-41EB-9BC5-B2F6A6F8F7DA-- From nobody Thu Aug 27 21:02:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3293A1585 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BHqIsZbpzu8H for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7D03A1588 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id nv17so3708001pjb.3 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Phl9zyM/jjZ9zkGiehIgl3VWNebbqVy2PmPWB4fyAZA=; b=LWDjlDIQNd/GIj19oYgLDUBd5qVwtaoEYRPUma9/1opVkoTAYk3D6TrpYtWsWexCmI 5kTQSGMRhTXB2ObXTUPBZjra4c9Lp0nU3/Iz2atFxSg32t3vjnNH+AbVErE5RDzThHpn ibbTRp7BDO5D5+aIZWu1JQ6nllEqAowzkr9Pso0A+Io1huqBpdoaXwPSwGQFhw0RIY4E B6aCHAMY/vBovamhKB9kOxWnFe7uacjBuc+PMG2ebilqLZoMqUhyNh4mePTfN0zOSh3M T9uT/E1V4+OHHdne29AbMhwSc66eGktFJ2v3TQuzlN21iKMoBJpgqMszYeti8WxEn0A4 0iMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Phl9zyM/jjZ9zkGiehIgl3VWNebbqVy2PmPWB4fyAZA=; b=hqajJwATII+6gkZSRxoV+FcfrW6Xm6JUMbWG87x4DWLAD5BRPQX+FaMpxcHIDgP4wU OBcTB6RVVbRFGO4EMZlfHRd2eSCd2xSfWfoD9vTHOnFPsZ8a5ezFvHlh0BkGcRLZ5FnT gX8egyYAD+HrHn8bLybcm1xNxiGD/pWWeWOTziGBAWFNuNkzyXjVowBXoFoumFhUBRKC 48cALidw7euqQjXHW/g4oYJdZ1AuQWA1Vjei9ehrjBwRO2HEW6GGc3mkXJ94Aaexzq7w gHZjC7wT9UIkwUh6ohaU9xVPSR7WyR6ik2LhwXdC5hYzzFXIv3HcCK0N2NKLITJwakjL KCtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533dJSB9v5/cdMKom7sJVvi0gC5MPThnzhuC4fVtXOyO7cmFlVD7 h7i4W2C+zoXg718FAu3jp9o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxV4GQG10YfV9aj4x8zgtefOOK2dhh1dP3zm3/5CCoL2wi7MnPjl4xhPm4otEcSrlOU682q/g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7044:: with SMTP id h4mr18890301plt.78.1598587335524; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n72sm4638335pfd.93.2020.08.27.21.02.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:02:14 -0700 (PDT) To: Jay Daley Cc: Adam Roach , "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon , rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> <89442755-dbf1-066c-6c73-f2a4b9444b3c@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:02:09 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:02:25 -0000 On 28-Aug-20 15:38, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >=20 >> However, from practical experience in the RSAG >> I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where t= he >> RFC production people need advice come up all the time. >=20 > Can I just tease this out a bit more. =C2=A0From my limited exposure to= the process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I wa= nt a bulleted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside= the acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG ar= twork" (I=E2=80=99m exaggerating, but not by much). =C2=A0It is not clear= to me if this requires a publishing expert, a community process to manag= e an ever more sophisticated style guide and underlying schema/tools, or = someone who is very good at saying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. =C2=A0Is this th= e sort of thing you had in mind when you talk about continual advice or i= s it something different? I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. John Levine has the most recent = experience; I've been out of the loop since IETF 106 due to COVID and tim= ezones. The kind of issues I recall that are not really IT or line manage= ment questions were, for example, whether or not to start assigning DOIs = to RFCs, and some years before that whether to get an ISSN number. Those = were visible 'big ticket' issues but we always seemed to have some such q= uestions come up at RSAG lunch meetings, and there was no question that t= he expert in the room was the RSE. Most of the rest of us didn't know wha= t we didn't know. There's no doubt that for several years the V3 format issues took up a la= rge part of the meeting time and I think we're agreed that this isn't rea= lly part of what we're discussing now. Hope this helps a little. Brian From nobody Thu Aug 27 21:34:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A793A1546 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:34:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rrBbhB726rB; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.125.175.224] (115-189-87-7.mobile.spark.co.nz [115.189.87.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C9FC3A1543; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jay Daley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:34:28 +1200 Message-Id: <2D44FFEB-B372-4E71-A022-A534D68E6F94@ietf.org> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> Cc: Adam Roach , "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon , rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson In-Reply-To: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:34:32 -0000 > On 28/08/2020, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 28-Aug-20 15:38, Jay Daley wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>>> On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>>=20 >>> However, from practical experience in the RSAG >>> I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where the= >>> RFC production people need advice come up all the time. >>=20 >> Can I just tease this out a bit more. =46rom my limited exposure to the p= rocess, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I want a bull= eted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside the acknowl= edgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG artwork" (I=E2=80= =99m exaggerating, but not by much). It is not clear to me if this requires= a publishing expert, a community process to manage an ever more sophisticat= ed style guide and underlying schema/tools, or someone who is very good at s= aying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind when y= ou talk about continual advice or is it something different? >=20 > I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. John Levine has the most recent e= xperience; I've been out of the loop since IETF 106 due to COVID and timezon= es. The kind of issues I recall that are not really IT or line management qu= estions were, for example, whether or not to start assigning DOIs to RFCs, a= nd some years before that whether to get an ISSN number. Those were visible '= big ticket' issues but we always seemed to have some such questions come up a= t RSAG lunch meetings, and there was no question that the expert in the room= was the RSE. Most of the rest of us didn't know what we didn't know. While I can see that=E2=80=99s the sort of thing we need an expert for I wou= ld imagine that the advice is to the community not the RPC as the RPC doesn=E2= =80=99t have authority to make those kinds of changes. I can also see that t= here would be some implementation advice required after something like that i= s decided but nothing that meets the bar of =E2=80=9Ccontinual=E2=80=9D. Am= I missing something? >=20 > There's no doubt that for several years the V3 format issues took up a lar= ge part of the meeting time and I think we're agreed that this isn't really p= art of what we're discussing now. As I understand it, the style->XML->output chain is so tightly connected tha= t most changes affect at least two if not three of those parts and that=E2=80= =99s where the bulk of the work is, not the big ticket items above.=20 It would indeed be helpful to get some current data about the nature of the =E2= =80=9Ccontinual=E2=80=9D work to see what skills are needed to support that.= =20 Jay --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director >=20 > Hope this helps a little. >=20 > Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Aug 27 21:43:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB28E3A0CCE for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d2BPpQSeRdfZ for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F7E93A0CDB for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse199.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.199] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx13.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kBWEe-0003HV-3I for rfced-future@iab.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:43:33 +0200 Received: from xsmtp21.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.60]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Bd6Rk3QjLzDNv for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp21.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kBWEc-0004gm-CC for rfced-future@iab.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 8115 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2020 04:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.208]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 28 Aug 2020 04:43:29 -0000 To: Brian E Carpenter , Jay Daley Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Ted Lemon , "Joel M. Halpern" , Adam Roach , Martin Thomson References: <7ba6fe3e-442b-4508-997c-3ae24c754398@www.fastmail.com> <9b2af8b0-54de-a062-8595-6ea3b89850eb@cs.tcd.ie> <65a64436-7b8e-4b85-8682-0bad43437d41@www.fastmail.com> <5D840732-7E75-4925-876D-2F5E38CA914A@gmail.com> <5114e2f4-c99e-d7a9-3bf1-623ad230d9e8@gmail.com> <2d5fd05f-d24b-49ca-b2f6-46936fb21907@www.fastmail.com> <2625d3e1-7c98-e6cd-a3ab-8f037542968d@joelhalpern.com> <76bbcca6-cecb-afc2-4ad4-f33769d5e4d7@nostrum.com> <89442755-dbf1-066c-6c73-f2a4b9444b3c@gmail.com> <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:43:28 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.199 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.199/32 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.199/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0fJi3Ojdyt5h9PLOIGvr3lipSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4ijwPuEhbNcl8hhsQQsfT//QVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuEBv13SzGszAabFDmPEaULHg7GrRD93GuKsil0DsNlfaQNjS91 xLLHjz8tOnVewUzjKn6AaXxoL/FjeXc4guU5t5coTPkiAq+E/1gvF2d40ruQVyADaS6UpCBADjTx teudCa15Ytj/yAhGv8ezOASMHW/bWfgucjnNmABpGhD9TTsjQT2BGVI0EbGkW8Q42wJCdCZm6kTr qH+fmxyzQoG+NtezYqxGMqsKjARq8PBC4qjRn0hhkccum+xyb3k4eNalTAas0edmB2q/yBRqnQY9 Wp4oEuFb796V1/nl3YbqwU/VPb6Z51AWQAUvAUQbV3oqEaMjfjmXaBok2IyAEprch60jiD6XqsJZ tjQxlyCdsezUTEAumaS8EPUiWeF3NFNfUvQXuDOneJLjhI8yk1Rrp3Os0z9WE+rcZkXGpBFZAP/o Oo70iqAlsD2ZyQe0MRcoD/P6s85Rfp5fJPPe7FbWEQRRiI4FYjmNWKK4C97xdQjTPpuFqUUQz+mM 8JAD4ECW01hX6Z4mazm+TMVGl3AotRzd1TBXbJNvBC1nKO3+wSPfYmeN/y5R7UqwytBqWHvGDIBH 1egoVoEp3d2BB4Ik61FfEoXm0/FPF8PR0w363lm+wEXov6OGIvFokmpxgv8DumHXledIN2OIQmiN VNnQ/HR6mMZiP8hyi9JD/oRrQtQcSyQwpbsYuxSOGTH6k0lfJmkP8s1HCfLKOW1F2ohPJ/AFMvX7 q8M4x6bP/gjzw0OgghQYwZVLClIproNi1WM01Bh4x4h9uYrmdPlyGg3lun80sIBTfGesZu6FzlJ8 P6r2OKHH5lr9xXvSM4nM3avg X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:43:39 -0000 On 8/27/2020 9:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 28-Aug-20 15:38, Jay Daley wrote: >> >>> On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>> However, from practical experience in the RSAG >>> I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where = the >>> RFC production people need advice come up all the time. >> Can I just tease this out a bit more. =C2=A0From my limited exposure t= o the process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I w= ant a bulleted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell insid= e the acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG a= rtwork" (I=E2=80=99m exaggerating, but not by much). =C2=A0It is not clea= r to me if this requires a publishing expert, a community process to mana= ge an ever more sophisticated style guide and underlying schema/tools, or= someone who is very good at saying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. =C2=A0Is this t= he sort of thing you had in mind when you talk about continual advice or = is it something different? > I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. John Levine has the most recen= t experience; I've been out of the loop since IETF 106 due to COVID and t= imezones. The kind of issues I recall that are not really IT or line mana= gement questions were, for example, whether or not to start assigning DOI= s to RFCs, and some years before that whether to get an ISSN number. Thos= e were visible 'big ticket' issues but we always seemed to have some such= questions come up at RSAG lunch meetings, and there was no question that= the expert in the room was the RSE. Most of the rest of us didn't know w= hat we didn't know. But these are two examples of "one off" issues that are very much on the policy side. What we are speaking about here is not the decision to get a DOI for RFC, or the WG-like process to define a new XML format. My impression is that the questions asked by the RPC tend to be related to document authors with extraordinary requirements (Jay's example being a caricature of that), or formatting requirements that expose an issue with the tools or the XML v3 format such as "Can we in insert a line break in the title". It is important that such questions be dispatched quickly. Expertise helps, knowledge of the formats and the tools is required. And yes, John could tell us more about that. -- Christian Huitema From nobody Thu Aug 27 22:01:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DCC3A1557 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Omap8pLgxaLH for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EB943A1554 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id l191so4897595pgd.5 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pTd3gaNyNtLVJeB+y+2BdnyoE4KleJUdNiXiTavxB/A=; b=kiSGD/Zqi/sZ3/w+BJcxXh0amaQ4ejVk0ShdKxo6HW+/ZFuVwVugB4ZW3L3k2Vju9P NvnfOoNgK4qgYbJsnND94MCsX9CKovjP6UEr0C5VjZ0Blt6h7uwCEuVDWhqhj392T/Lu lNG8B7p6WUghqV2Wh187w/7KhHQrbROM7wic9liQ866okAUT6iQDuCl1AoBTw/EMDxt3 XyfcmLFXqE6p1LssKJU5ptNdo9TZNakU/49G6B6Lf0cugans/5LeRHdf4dCqDbOabfwz claPygiRMQ6KHo6gwzB9Mg6n/1Y34QOtboEiVccJS1lRwuJC8BXJYQl8SeXAYUgmGm4n fmbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pTd3gaNyNtLVJeB+y+2BdnyoE4KleJUdNiXiTavxB/A=; b=PSSsbO3PQ1nxMA6XBxacS9hMuecOfa0IP+n7kFUeSIUahBL9Q3qRjdSDhnEQNo8pd+ Q/pamyYfPX3esWmmkvsj38bWI8s44ZK26XqeurgUbZl4u9gc0taBLfv8oPhBoSRQgB0B xrLGsz+7Ro3GGP9GClZlFaeeEy7tIXLn7MqD7h/hFL13yX3ZbuY6tttStMXaCul72b7I apBWtNrCPou72xyCfRZVKWliTB3/rIswu7UBXFIF6SAHU/IumGmC+JbsaDyFEUnDc8Yr MdZBNfZzj44v1Yhk4ou3maf0jxIB/cdgurVCCLigKFojfqf1sLnFcCLSRaqagdYZWbT2 4rHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FPV6RPM7qvpjrBCl6jPX/N+wcFbpS5oVEZ7bfoZAAl68jlOvk T2Nt/s71ozE/vfNC9gApRzw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZfFu0WAhnwiG52L+gqyz286od2V86xtRd/tQKuV4Vb+c1gT3zEuiSv6AHFP5k/+NscjWXtA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2295:: with SMTP id f21mr19542023pfe.51.1598590895185; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm60718pgl.38.2020.08.27.22.01.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:01:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Jay Daley Cc: Adam Roach , "Joel M. Halpern" , Ted Lemon , rfced-future@iab.org, Martin Thomson References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <2D44FFEB-B372-4E71-A022-A534D68E6F94@ietf.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <977658b0-5199-d09f-1396-29a35856f809@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:01:29 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2D44FFEB-B372-4E71-A022-A534D68E6F94@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:01:38 -0000 On 28-Aug-20 16:34, Jay Daley wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 28/08/2020, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> =EF=BB=BFOn 28-Aug-20 15:38, Jay Daley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> On 28/08/2020, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >>>> >>>> However, from practical experience in the RSAG >>>> I think we'd need such advice more or less continually. Issues where= the >>>> RFC production people need advice come up all the time. >>> >>> Can I just tease this out a bit more. From my limited exposure to th= e process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I want = a bulleted list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside th= e acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG artwo= rk" (I=E2=80=99m exaggerating, but not by much). It is not clear to me i= f this requires a publishing expert, a community process to manage an eve= r more sophisticated style guide and underlying schema/tools, or someone = who is very good at saying =E2=80=99no=E2=80=99. Is this the sort of thi= ng you had in mind when you talk about continual advice or is it somethin= g different? >> >> I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. John Levine has the most rece= nt experience; I've been out of the loop since IETF 106 due to COVID and = timezones. The kind of issues I recall that are not really IT or line man= agement questions were, for example, whether or not to start assigning DO= Is to RFCs, and some years before that whether to get an ISSN number. Tho= se were visible 'big ticket' issues but we always seemed to have some suc= h questions come up at RSAG lunch meetings, and there was no question tha= t the expert in the room was the RSE. Most of the rest of us didn't know = what we didn't know. >=20 > While I can see that=E2=80=99s the sort of thing we need an expert for = I would imagine that the advice is to the community not the RPC as the RP= C doesn=E2=80=99t have authority to make those kinds of changes. I can al= so see that there would be some implementation advice required after some= thing like that is decided but nothing that meets the bar of =E2=80=9Ccon= tinual=E2=80=9D. Am I missing something? "Continual" is not "continuous". So yes, these issues crop up episodicall= y, not every day or every week. That's exactly why my current model is ex= pressed as it is (and the analogy with a retained legal counsel is a good= one). >> >> There's no doubt that for several years the V3 format issues took up a= large part of the meeting time and I think we're agreed that this isn't = really part of what we're discussing now. >=20 > As I understand it, the style->XML->output chain is so tightly connecte= d that most changes affect at least two if not three of those parts and t= hat=E2=80=99s where the bulk of the work is, not the big ticket items abo= ve.=20 I agree, and that's an IT management issue where I am *not* claiming that= we need outside advisory expertise. =20 > It would indeed be helpful to get some current data about the nature of= the =E2=80=9Ccontinual=E2=80=9D work to see what skills are needed to su= pport that.=20 By its nature (i.e., unknown unknowns for we non-experts in publishing) i= t will be hard to quantify. Rgds Brian From nobody Thu Aug 27 23:24:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0062B3A159F for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:24:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZ0XQrMUliMF for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CBD23A159D for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from client-0112.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0112.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bd8gd2FRDzyVL; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 08:23:57 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <977658b0-5199-d09f-1396-29a35856f809@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 08:23:56 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620288636.744857-29679ffbf588f8ff20329e3303741cfb Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <27EB41B1-AABE-43E8-94A5-B6E70CAA45C2@tzi.org> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <2D44FFEB-B372-4E71-A022-A534D68E6F94@ietf.org> <977658b0-5199-d09f-1396-29a35856f809@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:24:03 -0000 On 2020-08-28, at 07:01, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 >> It would indeed be helpful to get some current data about the nature = of the =E2=80=9Ccontinual=E2=80=9D work to see what skills are needed to = support that.=20 >=20 > By its nature (i.e., unknown unknowns for we non-experts in = publishing) it will be hard to quantify. Yes, and the important part is what we are not doing because we don=E2=80=99= t know we could be doing it. E.g., DOIs were a useful step (even if = they required climbing over some victims of previous battles) for = integrating RFCs into the publishing streams where we want RFCs to be = visible. There is a lot more to do here, and the RSE would be in a = position of developing the initiatives (or, also, reformulating = initiatives coming from the community into a form that becomes = actionable and effective). This strategic part of the work is very different from the daily =E2=80=9C= how do I get a line break here and is that even something that should be = possible=E2=80=9D which is more technical in nature but nearly always = has some long-term consequence (the =E2=80=9CRPC guidance=E2=80=9D = work). =20 The V3 project has some IT management components, but the RSE input that = we need now to complete it is much about learning the actual = consequences of decisions that were made and re-adjusting for the 2020s = and beyond. Some involvement in the troubles of the RPC is useful to = make the right calls here. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Fri Aug 28 09:26:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEC93A0DAE for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6B0r1vQ0qck for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4B83A0DAB for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id e7so405674qtj.11 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=1wBlTBnOd7b2wF5Nf4MGx8QOiqVbS57XWqggczXxwT8=; b=NHUwPlg+RI/WWpPy8xB7s/ijhVu+Yp2QU23EMd3eTZKfPv/0O7wXIJ16Gs3MjzbeTf DNYbL7w8nQQg+tBwzv+UA3pc1mnvy9KxqDRl/fdFfq2SEF9xDiZzj1+rKpx5pgflZCMA 5mixIckbGFwF25w95YVw/e7v97WwG4P6vYpQtqznRlZXVGIqvKZIjZDsCNebUON7zqsy vWsnvljEY+ThrDyV+jy7f755eJ0CMMZ2RbjIl39Q0Rt4n8Ov4xM5U/0r96Thh5MPk/ZC RfrU/n8LHlQZwqOHTmAsCDpBPLgbYZ7lf11labqSCRj7XVpDunWCJx6hxXhSgEyfqIJz 5fkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=1wBlTBnOd7b2wF5Nf4MGx8QOiqVbS57XWqggczXxwT8=; b=XqBd/r8OuYbc1bsa2f6S8aLJxkDB7cw3KxBgoHVo8zvWbHKC4panCr5XpiheFBqO73 V8qOBoJ9LOldcETD+PaHpj8+Pp1bkN0YBl7y2nM+6LArsCbJXP26boPriW1U5Sb2uyN3 Oc1oYMOEcfjgrILKNcc5zPm/T5a+Sjwss/BU5ac+VlKKxuD9YPhFw1gZgpgArahaRwF/ zHl7tiz8A11owCmDhLAqO/Xyd0kJagY0lseueZAmf+TaoaIkdPdMfeqK+BqwIYOX9bRu uPilFudc6/lvUNzS4KFdEgIG45FGDj1Y9ENcg2PyiitM4RQi5KmTTC18lfxKLuqK7O9i FnUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ktoEvr0c65Tua0ivBtq1qeuKUQyAvVqxsls0Sg5do5wxtfi+8 imu3092zSx9ShzEFH84WA3BjYcJlBmcWm6pluU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzj2t8F1zvpdabI8OcwsLTZYLkF+gOAmUPoXZwhieuyYfzagWgxvatbQ9IGLhdsA6bM5Co1oA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:43cf:: with SMTP id w15mr2314881qtn.55.1598631971283; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v42sm1037991qth.35.2020.08.28.09.26.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:26:10 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <56a671fc-b075-2613-6649-5d5f5043e26f@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:26:10 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:26:14 -0000 ~48 hours On 8/26/2020 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Mike, hi all, > >> On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB. I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?” > Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I’m well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I’m uncertain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with another body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by even larger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed as well. So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very satisfying if someone just says “there have been problems with the IAB, so let remove the IAB”. I would rather like to better understand what you think the problems have been and how they are addressed by your proposal. I do have my own thoughts but I first would like to understand the thoughts of those people who have thankfully written down a proposal. Hi - I *really* don't think this is a useful conversation.   But you've asked for some reason.. 1) The IAB actually hasn't been involved in the RFC stuff since it formed the RSOC.   It handed off authority and responsibility, and left it in a state of benign neglect.  That worked surprisingly well until the contractual relationship came under the purview of the LLC.  I'm not sure those are connected, but the timing is interesting. 2) Structurally, none of the existing I* boards with the exception of the LLC are set up to deal with personnel actions. To do those, you need a fiduciary relationship with the person being managed.  Right now the LLC is in full on deferral mode to the IAB for this and that was at least part of the problem - that the RSOC felt comfortable enough to make personnel decisions two levels removed from the actual body that would have to trigger the recompete.  It also felt comfortable enough that the IAB would support those decisions that they discussed them with the RSE prior to ever getting IAB sign off. 3) The IAB took action to reform the RSOC and AFAICT did so in a vacuum with respect to the RSE.  This appeared to be a fall out from the failed RFC++ BOF which - according to what I understand from the contract and various RFCs - shouldn't have happened in the way that it did, without RSE input.   In any event, the RSOC dropped I believe it was the three members that were both a) sympathetic to the RSE and b) had the most experience with the RFC series - a set of decisions that to this day I have failed to make sense of. 4) There needs to be a focus on the topic of publication that is neither apparent from the current IAB membership, nor would be consistent over the next say 6 or so IABs.  While an IAB program focused on the RFC series might provide useful input from the IAB's perspective it continues to be unclear whether it actually would be viable (interest wise) as a long term project. 5) You've indicated at least 3 or 4 times that the IAB is busy. Perhaps you should be looking to this not as losing authority, but as gaining time.    This isn't actually an architecture thing and I find it hard to place under the IAB's remit on that basis. 6) And the most important - the IAB took no actions to remediate the problems.  It's unclear that it has the structural ability to do so. Later, Mike > Mirja > > > > > From nobody Fri Aug 28 11:25:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F72F3A011B for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:25:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blUQzMZfXyYO for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9BDC3A0037 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=368; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598639153; x=1599848753; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject: message-id:date:to; bh=13zT114MIacHFsuEzUzKKuBXJL5Hw4wQcWyt+lB5nxY=; b=GqxUuniprqi0cCeO1rnYgL5pZF2MmMQj8Qig5amxhv6ni9foP4kPQczW Yfq5NttH1BUK6YCPJYv7CI1/jM6+ShvP0K3B/ZJ9VxX3kXC2tNcqmg6/p Z3V/XRN6yoSoDlGqCr+p5B1aeg8ZUEtL10GBBgTx9oIuH45sD0RJx3Hs1 s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfBADfS0lf/xbLJq1fHgErCwYMIoF?= =?us-ascii?q?KgxpUASAShGSJAaJbgX0LAQEBDAEBIwwEAQGHGCU2Bw4CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBgRthVwMhhyBCwImAoQYAYJ8D6N2jhB2gTKEOwGBF4UWBoEOKo1AggCBOBy?= =?us-ascii?q?CIAGFdIJKM4ItBLZfgm4EgwiFW5FJAx6CdQGPBo5OnRqRK4NYAgQGBQIVgVs?= =?us-ascii?q?EL4FXMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDVeROYpYPwNnAgYBCQEBAwmMYgEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,364,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="29142626" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Aug 2020 18:25:49 +0000 Received: from [10.61.233.91] ([10.61.233.91]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07SIPn1x003846 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:25:49 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Message-Id: <1F24DC7E-AC39-4DE8-AB99-E248C8240620@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:25:48 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.233.91, [10.61.233.91] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Interim doodle to discuss drafts X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:25:56 -0000 Hi everyone, I=E2=80=99ve created a doodle for the week of the 14th of September so = that we can meet to discuss the various drafts. As is always the case, = we are a geographically disparate crowd. Thank you for your = understanding in that regard. Doodle deadline: Tuesday, 1 September 5:00pm GMT. https://doodle.com/poll/c27sinppf3mur44h Eliot= From nobody Fri Aug 28 13:46:43 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB9A3A0BF5 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=w82bUtvQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=mHeY94HE Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1o4J3hU5gH0 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A233A0BF0 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11189 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2020 20:46:36 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2bb3.5f496d2c.k2008; bh=nxJNAO+nAFeI9agSxxzRx2OeIpV7/8v4z03WO4Z3ulc=; b=w82bUtvQMqt+RQfNgwfApgrR+gQri42PL73QD6oSU4RKEoqagwBbrRKYojb1pMh8+gWWxYMO77VD1MVehuOhPEu/uxtusJDe1oMlxPS34DFeYX1OWwt9xrKD42DkYd0clDkjA0fsBNGSqjxNZLGABve6j5M1CRMQOn+GPxl11EN9vlNVrn9Ygs63d/QGcdpGZj589FUK7wc9giZsRe+nVPr1m5WxKzHiBQI8o2ktc9JcXDHQqY/a+IJ/dobb+OOAvNOZjOuy2bbYDaEXf8KgW1nUErLffuYKpmRYTpgbycfjuVkSSx4nnCC4zGKV6rk0Bp4D68eBwGlsdFY1sdKRxg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2bb3.5f496d2c.k2008; bh=nxJNAO+nAFeI9agSxxzRx2OeIpV7/8v4z03WO4Z3ulc=; b=mHeY94HECsvEVnAULuCbV9c35jUefD6cp8plSf9mJXPNSc7rFMXqYxRI+LFrHr1geSQb2M2MYdctRFoxQtGYHgeLWH0QHJZCMcVs4aXgVOQV209T5Oa1fMZN5Mdx7sCHgthMemDxj+WzR7IjEtMO1WIHoMg+rNL8qlLlSnDdLR+3m1J1TqjJ9gZq5ArEzJ5ZRVdlzdRz6lBbobtD8Ny213MXCtS1tjNebX3tWgQVIs2rNofJR9t9cW5ghuprwi9JycBeADEFLhDzjuUJN+eZDLd0AJThNovu1Q61rK9V4Q6ZzmeJNuQ1JlK9mzL9NfwpN0HaoFp+DaJp3PMLleqNVw== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 28 Aug 2020 20:46:36 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3B7941F3DEBC; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: 28 Aug 2020 16:46:36 -0400 Message-Id: <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:46:41 -0000 In article <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> you write: >> Can I just tease this out a bit more.  From my limited exposure to the process, the majority of the work/fuss is about such things as "I want a bulleted >list of contributors written RTL inside a table cell inside the acknowledgements section and right-aligned with a gap in this SVG artwork" (I’m exaggerating, >but not by much).  It is not clear to me if this requires a publishing expert, a community process to manage an ever more sophisticated style guide and >underlying schema/tools, or someone who is very good at saying ’no’.  Is this the sort of thing you had in mind when you talk about continual advice or is >it something different? At the moment I'm dealing with low level stuff like table formats and where the page numbers go. There are higher level issues someone should deal with someday like whether it still makes sense for RFCs to be immutable point documents or whether we should have updates and version numbers like everyone else does. There's also issues of authoring tools. In the world outside the IETF, everyone uses MS Word and Google Docs to write their documents. While those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new IETF participants. R's, John From nobody Fri Aug 28 13:55:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041CF3A0C2B for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HzjiZO0OLOcS for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730A73A0C2A for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m22so326400ljj.5 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:55:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vGemx/Q+LJjLTTqrQFy2jPMwS3JNtUuVwjMm9p5yizA=; b=n46g5DsZHtO4a4fkNlbycl8wasxX05G+I0cDcU2xSFDI+hLoOGhpTIIJV3BXPG7U5j Sc5VzpR9WzSEEn+2Lg66ZcPGEJTxc9VQeZ/qcBh61D6YrhmYiEuGP0D0Ab0fghD8XjG+ CY6VKntvVLL3iYIXI8NqtuVuMqZdfj+cJkWHoPRmJxqu2fm42EQXK7Vr1mFH1ydqkKKT GUOGxnc65lPspGZiIAE6fD2IN7lUkfJwgCnIey5Ha0Bn4jSsboTcT9riqzepcHvOv9hc hFhQ6AJ+27PGhavRKZT7DNDzZICtMEir7YG+YXe8Xcx1yv+5sJFxKDamQbEcVqVQyJU9 XYpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vGemx/Q+LJjLTTqrQFy2jPMwS3JNtUuVwjMm9p5yizA=; b=pp/QEUixIyWAB0xMQStA2qpY3nVkuPHae7in0NMTWPjew1rRKqbK2F1Of29szJfeoV JoN4fOIngw5nE50wLbJ5RLZl1hPyWc7/m8QxIaIVOpINKosWWtg6kNsKx+vRzlw/Ly/y 0D7PClK9c4/WaeGXnAAC9DB968HpXouTdawCnuqsj3Wr8NbaIu8DlTdEoW10E75I51vK 3TMRklZwef/mRnV1agdffE4cI1ylW9rDXJoWzL6Uw7QjNq6jUOrU7wXgQmnn22FtthHY Gjn8EsWmXuYL7I0rFj1uYAxMqBL6OCukwDY4ETLyz7hmSiEScNos4A0myYk1I9euCFde NuEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jW6RgNgdRDeN2Y4HXhoNtS6L/an9y1E5hBQm2WnLyzaFXuQZ4 dO9tEi923sHsuWwVbkTFu1CsmP+wceg0m7ENZusUvlzNdfgXsA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7ZSqRf9leXLq/z6CAmrIN8bM+gnQlzMoMa6TsTh2z8lwEOJQ2J8FilBfehRsGCpb0WPMKtX8beTWL4sReztk= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3609:: with SMTP id d9mr237891lja.17.1598648120295; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:55:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> In-Reply-To: <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:54:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: John Levine Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054de6005adf64506" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:55:25 -0000 --00000000000054de6005adf64506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" n Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:46 PM John Levine wrote: > There's also issues of authoring tools. In the world outside the IETF, > everyone uses MS Word and Google Docs to write their documents. While > those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need > to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new > IETF participants. > I'm no fan of our bespoke tools but this is not correct. WHATWG, W3C and (afaict) TC39 use HTML-based formats. -Ekr --00000000000054de6005adf64506 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
n Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:46 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
There's also issues of authoring tools. In the world outside the IETF,<= br> everyone uses MS Word and Google Docs to write their documents. While
those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need<= br> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new
IETF participants.

I'm no fan of ou= r bespoke tools but this is not correct. WHATWG, W3C and (afaict) TC39 use = HTML-based formats.

-Ekr
--00000000000054de6005adf64506-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 14:00:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE7F3A0C33 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=tEWCODyO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=GfLcoFr+ Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLLHuaXU291n for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80B993A0C2F for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14574 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2020 21:00:24 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=38ec.5f497068.k2008; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Gr6V0hTMpjh6du1wO5nze/XIFLhz/aL+k20D0c+pSks=; b=tEWCODyOjbDEmJidLFfjTb1cbqk63s5P6vXfQHVxaeq4Hpf1LnAcG89NHCap7rFK+O1S7JdnpPGae49eg3RQ6s7r9gDY9ALbQuHaNaiGOW+u4eKp+gTVamCWdUjPggBAK4LjsP4DHqCjZfiUG3pCZ9ab0AbGfREhhnedqABmVY/0QoEjGfxZWEidDkFJ0h6BioSQJtSEoQfOfeUaxjpmSRb1NwrowiJqq0MmqBAZDRhetlgu7BCNRmxmaRnAc7E1yBCMnMNTLZXKS7ezGQPDf8ivzKzn8aml+oTu3EWTxWQQuLv+nz3/+L1dhpJA2vFF0a7kvRTyOPTDIcii+9L5UQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=38ec.5f497068.k2008; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Gr6V0hTMpjh6du1wO5nze/XIFLhz/aL+k20D0c+pSks=; b=GfLcoFr+w2iUi2evoqtVc1RwNGKDu2484iiUlJ2dvs9hvhoo2iQw2GHknc47OHnlyBLCpX9fXAeggZp/vRXqSlk82uRhCdyHSM2dxZQq106U0pcUHJ9myEBvVAjwDxAjTGI/d000VGiG9Uyotn4Bc/ufks0IKIi8qmlkQnohrlxi/vpzMN5mWVgbmRqAuqieDDPD5dhRaWLccz3b2VfrCt1pnbL/V8E95OP5EHO6WBm0lQMEyEYav/zbE9GdvKIVHaQX0oLz6Qy7TUJBrw3Xprup77Br1P0oWWxJzA1h3nc3YxvSHMMA+8rY/jqMdTSd0HFqohbXwwgv1lZXHiOE9g== Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 28 Aug 2020 21:00:23 -0000 Date: 28 Aug 2020 17:00:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> From: "John R Levine" To: "Eric Rescorla" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:28 -0000 >> those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need >> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new >> IETF participants. > > I'm no fan of our bespoke tools but this is not correct. WHATWG, W3C and > (afaict) TC39 use HTML-based formats. I wouldn't call any of them great examples of open participation either and for them it's eating their own dogfood, which xml2rfc is definitely not. Look at IEEE or ANSI or ISO, you'll see a lot of MS Word. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Fri Aug 28 14:12:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4375C3A0C4F for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r6SyADFpFpg9 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFB43A0C4A for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id y2so392880ljc.1 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zvH1npiuH5DtAZ46BeM4tz+eV45/KIdYG+T/0oMO47M=; b=gnrSfnXH+b9L89xy8TtnzhrXxX/57BE5PufuQUwvyBqQkI6n1rYVfXBVTDBsjzJVSK 51e5+k1JfE1DykqIr2vmXOaJoVGBdr89WNaAfg+DIlDhbPpOIFCzrUt9DeLshVNBeV9R e1rv658FqbmX9y3vz0czE/56qMnmxCKgMeXUsobDsIcnhRU6zDFHlgqO5t9XFS0fEjo5 CO4/4wVa1LhGoJNeUDC3INQFurxFTx9DtrdEJ271XDSj21neDpN6sfas9I5as2H+r/0n ue5BdP4qsMEKgqfhRn6CodbYZYsSS4GEw18fXgicVmhz9qFZmobViZssIPEmMh+MHZ+y Sv8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zvH1npiuH5DtAZ46BeM4tz+eV45/KIdYG+T/0oMO47M=; b=F523MnTCVd0CE/WmOHe6L8whxD+qg18xFJlIw25tMdmkFJLEDQE++kN2kyxBsApBxJ 4DegVlelpQlSBdjFuAy6qZgkuyxP0lVZcRhrZFWE4qtWMQtR2uvoz6XuQ8kdZ3T2ezVN g24Ok3HeVBNHJJzL6nk3KCUM8rzevZDCnsYh903w0SLX39BQdMtI9CQxbtzHmifZKV/Z Aqr3g4mCB9ZhsILtR210YPM8AOL2jb0toehwwAofu7LlCSqfVj/bbhe57sRUrV40DIrA rlmGNs9P7BjZmQHiAim3ArMUC0+GC2BYOVJ67wAf99Njp+O+BfB1kPuujqSUsFiP8jad ob5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TZ09/JmSxKdr4lC+dtkRhAHUUw/rysmXhIJeDoBWeuqf2+F4V 6ZllcI8xqxE1cTERj2NL8x7sTTs/bXK3MaN8aNG93g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2IQZqKAyAyIGg4/9cF0uR/TaU6MixNobfYHHvn6ornVGkKuMjvJ034Vjnk/sZsrWtFzqafOfS7GNRP9Ytr8U= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7615:: with SMTP id r21mr264056ljc.371.1598649144739; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:12:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> In-Reply-To: <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:11:48 -0700 Message-ID: To: John R Levine Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000649feb05adf682db" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:12:28 -0000 --000000000000649feb05adf682db Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:00 PM John R Levine wrote: > >> those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need > >> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new > >> IETF participants. > > > > I'm no fan of our bespoke tools but this is not correct. WHATWG, W3C and > > (afaict) TC39 use HTML-based formats. > > I wouldn't call any of them great examples of open participation either > and for them it's eating their own dogfood, which xml2rfc is definitely > not. > > Look at IEEE or ANSI or ISO, you'll see a lot of MS Word. > Well, this is a significantly different claim from the text I was responding to: "In the world outside the IETF, everyone uses MS Word and Google Docs to write their documents." I certainly agree that *some* standards bodies use MS Word and Google docs. It seems like the argument you're making is that (1) IEEE or ANSI or ISO are better examples of open participation than WHATWG, W3C, TC39, and IETF and (2) that has something to do with the document formats. I don't agree with (1). To the contrary, taking PRs on Github seems significantly more open that what I see in the SDOs you list. As for (2), I doubt that the document format has much to do with one way or the other. -Ekr --000000000000649feb05adf682db Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:00 PM John = R Levine <johnl@tau= gh.com> wrote:
>> those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn&#= 39;t) the need
>> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier t= o new
>> IETF participants.
>
> I'm no fan of our bespoke tools but this is not correct. WHATWG, W= 3C and
> (afaict) TC39 use HTML-based formats.

I wouldn't call any of them great examples of open participation either=
and for them it's eating their own dogfood, which xml2rfc is definitely=
not.

Look at IEEE or ANSI or ISO, you'll see a lot of MS Word.

Well, this is a significantly different claim from t= he text I was responding to: "In the world outside the IETF, eve= ryone uses MS Word and Google Docs to write their documents." I certai= nly agree that *some* standards bodies use MS Word and Google docs.

It seems like the argument = you're making is that (1) IEEE or ANSI or ISO are better examples of op= en participation than WHATWG, W3C, TC39, and IETF and (2) that has somethin= g to do with the document formats. I don't agree with (1). To the contr= ary, taking PRs on Github seems significantly more open that what I see in = the SDOs you list. As for (2), I doubt that the document format has much to= do with one way or the other.

-Ekr


<= /div>
--000000000000649feb05adf682db-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 14:26:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780813A0C8A for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dly4M3R8IPPY for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1286E3A0C8F for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BdXhH195SzyXV; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:25:51 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:25:50 +0200 Cc: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620342750.699399-1b95be962836e5701cb0112c5cdfd9bc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <280422FC-CB4D-48AC-AB49-F27CBE00A4CD@tzi.org> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> To: John R Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:26:08 -0000 On 2020-08-28, at 23:00, John R Levine wrote: >=20 > Look at IEEE or ANSI or ISO, you'll see a lot of MS Word. I=E2=80=99m not sure that this is the discussion we want to have here = right now, but let me point out that some of us are part of a world that = has been weaning itself of that addiction, and we would never go back to = that. Those who do serious specification work at high velocity in these = organizations often have their own bespoke tools for one specific = project, e.g., see https://github.com/cplusplus/draft Now we don=E2=80=99t have any document of this level of complexity (not = even NFSv4 comes close), but having edited an RFC that was just one = order of magnitude smaller, in MS-Word, I can tell you that I belong to = the group that would never go back. All this is on the authoring side, which has most definitely not been = the focus of the V3 work, and getting a good pipeline that is inclusive = to the people who prefer to work in MS-Word is certainly a useful = follow-on project. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Fri Aug 28 16:03:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82B13A0D8C for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:03:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=DmfSeeNN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=deFNBKVt Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id csdw2wVV4toG for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38A643A0D81 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 51743 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2020 23:03:26 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=ca1a.5f498d3e.k2008; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=JYwH/bVTmVrnq9gdRBwP/WCha0gTroeFMK72dwtpuXs=; b=DmfSeeNNJyjD4Indexa4BHI2iLK/CV+DJ5Pbz1j1QPzAwsFurQIQZ2GZJvB3FrJxL7bvMjxTOMaxZx/GaVUMivbUi+TVOtZHFDPpxr5MLoQSfF8Z9mqj51ULSYMgRMS6L7jOEllItTIlNyGrwayrYlZo5GOHp4zjrKQhxSsMxByFrNytEijBZNK/6NtvcywHOhXgZ/+vED9VYxVgcMTnVN5txuhYbD3GQ6Aopn57oZFzSaS01G+n6FfVCnc0+cU25dTwrtUAFAVrn1m15CN6iGTZOuYKZmzbLSPq+PpRVWYh1scStOqZiDf/e9YWHuBXxSlwePccn6tEsJPzlvC7xg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=ca1a.5f498d3e.k2008; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=JYwH/bVTmVrnq9gdRBwP/WCha0gTroeFMK72dwtpuXs=; b=deFNBKVtSDZKs+ZIPztx+HK0iAJ9j2gvjfi74FMksPAYc/I0Ck0pXabWAnFYBF8HzlMaDjyzKYEHOTi19EHU1z6BHJYSo+O/FMlX6/N5DgRy0zrR5rVp3OcQLJ81ZomJIJey7724K5WJYoysB2CCgSKRfU43q2bv8mKUzrYMve0yFgJpU2Vcc92ZGiFuYIxXAvk1tzhIgp+chvbF9i52rbPgq5NDlonlIjQanMfEjpNPa/pIXKBJu4bg6hyqDZqwqNk2btluw4F71Cq/fQLYVI0l2lxV9RMtWsS0Kjv+z9D3YpNvyJWnXj1hAPCISXTqIvAyR38ZRMabfmQAVc+J/A== Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 28 Aug 2020 23:03:26 -0000 Date: 28 Aug 2020 19:03:26 -0400 Message-ID: <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> From: "John R Levine" To: "Eric Rescorla" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:03:30 -0000 >> those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need >> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new >> IETF participants. To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for other stuff. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Fri Aug 28 16:13:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BCB3A0D13 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4FnOcPw99QC for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637783A0CF9 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id 185so603824ljj.7 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NO8+JyMwdFn2CRa4uGJXcvdczQZ4UKPW4N2tQHxr2wI=; b=UcEf/yDaqh2DpYwbie3TjYs+D0V8ckm1qoI/1agVBI7tQpjoXCdx7iwgXf10JCtHk0 CJLNeoGRpsRUnsAVzOg1MdcQ/nxC6zVYeQI0DR20LbXsFfjus3tyV3RFBjLlfQUZjR7j EQWw6wi93nfcdZhO1oB0E9m+wtzGLvrecvhT8g0wi7PLk4RWvVlBiGVbl2mSzVUZvJZF n5Fk06lZqqQhx7FkOEXcyV3/F8B090muecb2d1nS4/NapTulXe5j8jbOBh9gbb7z3C4P tMbcxQzFesjeT6kUMW2aTcdzD1H6nXupGDEyzWbh89xl9GTWXRgUNLuGZ9242bq1P66U mkJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NO8+JyMwdFn2CRa4uGJXcvdczQZ4UKPW4N2tQHxr2wI=; b=SpSvjh2UNuD0flFqCepL0fL+qnjvNwIgJEJ5HsyYGsiHw2vz4LXvcbfx6ZAMF0Bvzr +cTyJIuk54tAP0sHG1fIQig8QtYCj77hX1HPI55eGDB3rAlXYBnNLn/+qkTWqz/reiO7 oq49F49fPMNZHWxvPGW/C7swViD+DYlw08kBp2XiwZJZRXYPGo/x78owLRo0MjrJ7+bX AJo9X85w79fV4Gf3YuzL+SdcPoRdW+Qqt+ont7HTLPR2BdMglrOalIJb7h1Y2O79MLx4 5KQB+D30Euo9OGV7mZyW77UL36RcUsJfHJ73SoQWCaZ2vw64Gz9lYbVPKKFTo9TbLNMj sYGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5313fXKV+t7XawFt7H/33eICM3IFioIS8ySfWtevSHaaldg1EQwF 0Jp1EW8l8GJt31tEK5/20EuzxMnmvYtchYUYbw4YZXUfh2TNew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxR3AzRMNjXKbL4tbnkFs61dlvmn6Z5nHEgIBlTqGNglyKRp8eRp+Yks5U1CsTBBDCQWms4cALLV/tNOkGgjeA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4f1:: with SMTP id s17mr432466ljm.184.1598656417504; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> In-Reply-To: <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:13:01 -0700 Message-ID: To: John R Levine Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e2355705adf8336a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:13:41 -0000 --000000000000e2355705adf8336a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:03 PM John R Levine wrote: > >> those are not necessarily my favorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need > >> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier to new > >> IETF participants. > > To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format > because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring format. > If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort > into thinking about the entire document creation process and better tools > to let people use the editing tools they use for other stuff. > Not totally sure I agree on the publication format, but 100% agree on the authoring format. -Ekr --000000000000e2355705adf8336a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:03 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> those are not necessarily my f= avorite tools (Word sure isn't) the need
>> to use our exotic bespoke authoring tools is yet another barrier t= o new
>> IETF participants.

To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format
because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring form= at.
If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and better tools <= br> to let people use the editing tools they use for other stuff.

Not totally sure I agree on the publication format, = but 100% agree on the authoring format.

-Ekr

--000000000000e2355705adf8336a-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 17:34:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B0C3A0E94 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:34:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nyez5rKNc84e for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0CBA3A0E93 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:34:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=LgFPAKVXnBmSy3MAy3e2U22bX1krVPY9roAKgcKjmEQ=; b=Tn9jQulMacwF/Empq/sb98vrU nfefMNHL4MAO6jgUlIQrJHu/Rl18h/uRDgX4DT5jThk1Qp2jxW4amo7ysSJjsRezmYtELeyHGKDP+ SirC4cVQZSoikNECEC7rYfyP/zSnp4o4IgZoxn8prR0pJ+dNr5dUH8pf+AHDBsi4abbP/z3OPICCl bKe47f/LvWA2uVMK6ZrMQXKzgmr+g8y3bpZwzke7DQU9VL99IokheKqFerVy7pMOnK+SHAyJG20rt mbvOakxupkZXD9WwKJRSEl2ymiHKEvGeClbaRYSV0gSzIkIz4AejLi68POk6zFL/SSPiftbRcmEHc KkFdEKNFw==; Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59518 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kBop3-0006N3-OL; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:34:26 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_506EB5CB-398B-467F-80AA-0A5FDABCA38E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Joseph Touch In-Reply-To: <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:34:20 -0700 Cc: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org Message-Id: <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> To: John R Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:34:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_506EB5CB-398B-467F-80AA-0A5FDABCA38E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine wrote: >=20 > To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format = because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring = format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more = effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and = better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for other = stuff. That=E2=80=99s why I support the Word format, FWIW. I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, = but that=E2=80=99s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) = makes it impossible to generate =E2=80=9Cnon-compiling XML=E2=80=9D that = can=E2=80=99t easily be untangled. Joe= --Apple-Mail=_506EB5CB-398B-467F-80AA-0A5FDABCA38E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> = wrote:

To perhaps clarify, I think that = xml2rfc is an OK publication format because of all the semantic tagging, = but it's a terrible authoring format. If it were up to me (and I had = 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort into thinking about the entire = document creation process and better tools to let people use the editing = tools they use for other stuff.

That=E2=80=99s why I support the Word format, = FWIW.

I = understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, but = that=E2=80=99s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) = makes it impossible to generate =E2=80=9Cnon-compiling XML=E2=80=9D that = can=E2=80=99t easily be untangled.

Joe
= --Apple-Mail=_506EB5CB-398B-467F-80AA-0A5FDABCA38E-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 18:43:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7143A0F04 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.844 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t18amgXBfw6L for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B893A0F03 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id g72so852744qke.8 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=5bW5+pUQ7GxcKVfKJ+do1S09FDtRo2KThACoGgmgOME=; b=RZ18P0mWPlRYEViKeaItXzd0GmY+NAMJbCM5ebojfls7YM99NpjJrrUXRVrq0Y1qtQ LpLJLQKRXN8XXqJ3aZaxgwMTfgp5HtcAx3ZzmvdZmLm1dSknyj+boMjUCTB7dtL7quXK RQIheGnmrZobtBZpNYdosRibFOlP1UL/BO5YdOekZ1s36m2l/7nOZp9nRfgbg5eBbSb0 Yazy1USL3/EXAkYvig8hRoi5VxRM4WzpucKIEgxJh3DyYXODDVFW1vAMu84eKMZQAEy4 +hkCe40Yf9yLr3IoaeHWhPhu6FpJheu9nBNnulGrH3CJfTFRp5s+WnDjTDCDk/EYIy1H Vs1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=5bW5+pUQ7GxcKVfKJ+do1S09FDtRo2KThACoGgmgOME=; b=lSdsRsH0ItXcB94qiGH/VyavJSoeBkx6ZwqFgPeLg/tKwb9o+AuAyjrs9xIflTWmXi SoKOt9M/bvKPs/uWLwLrTKTk1t5k5vI9medytXn/3kGsKP0eka7vkYQY8JDiCY50Sw6U iaGG19gtKUoNvNf4Iy8+m1H2vy2aOtW0OPEqaLf2jGxiwwy4R/N93jX2ViE7QFcKyxL7 AYRn0insDKOmv4vGC3WuV8JS0NX0m2bo8S90ftsWMDM39FHUOpsqyXgWm/DXCt5pGgfm /QP/cOzGvU60f2Af6Sp/tTyYfqwfRH7H0sFZ5jW3xjGVC3iLd70kVgnysttz4DwpSIOj 2ZNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532TTBsjJz8tJ1mCY+65ADLNB/XFhtWblqTIGTncTFR4ZvWeUmtT muNPp1uV6qwNwQevNp1pMIoYuuR7GBfCJrvdYsM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqrMFJXbfp48VHj+ak2xYkXtQHVtDdFIKTv2t5szemgBrQvs1mXUwA2HTzYe0DuxpAube+gg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:97c5:: with SMTP id z188mr1748075qkd.185.1598665399761; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u8sm837843qkj.9.2020.08.28.18.43.19 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:43:19 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:43:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2EC774A4905694F5D12599B8" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 01:43:23 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2EC774A4905694F5D12599B8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Joe - Somewhere around 20+ years ago I watched in horror as one of the technical groups associated with the the US DOD adopted WordPerfect as its publication format. You can guess how that turned out. We use XML with an easily interpreted schema as an archival publication format because the chances of someone being able to interpret it in 20 years is near unity. The same cannot be said for Word, nor does "Word" specify the actual publication format given that Microsoft feels the need to change both its UI and its format at rest with each and every major version. I hate authoring in XML - but I'm pretty sure that it will be renderable in some form in 30-50 years. Mike On 8/28/2020 8:34 PM, Joseph Touch wrote: > > >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine > > wrote: >> >> To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format >> because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring >> format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put >> more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process >> and better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for >> other stuff. > > That’s why I support the Word format, FWIW. > > I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, > but that’s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) makes > it impossible to generate “non-compiling XML” that can’t easily be > untangled. > > Joe > --------------2EC774A4905694F5D12599B8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Joe -

Somewhere around 20+ years ago I watched in horror as one of the technical groups associated with the the US DOD adopted WordPerfect as its publication format.   You can guess how that turned out.

We use XML with an easily interpreted schema as an archival publication format because the chances of someone being able to interpret it in 20 years is near unity.    The same cannot be said for Word, nor does "Word" specify the actual publication format given that Microsoft feels the need to change both its UI and its format at rest with each and every major version.

I hate authoring in XML - but I'm pretty sure that it will be renderable in some form in 30-50 years.

Mike


On 8/28/2020 8:34 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:


On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for other stuff.

That’s why I support the Word format, FWIW.

I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, but that’s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) makes it impossible to generate “non-compiling XML” that can’t easily be untangled.

Joe


--------------2EC774A4905694F5D12599B8-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 20:15:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177B53A0F6B for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:15:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.317 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98ywMeHTRSWw for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93153A0F25 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=sDV1bCGJd3dedsrKbuoBRCMFAhl9NhzBS4ZUhQ2hRO4=; b=uniMmsnwufqVWqusgdXWsBF3r OzVIzApc3CKqeoxMHaoCIXpTwKnMknNozOEvtdsXvrYV6OHUeTVC7rnlLMfCvyK/veQsqQStbx2pK LZWqMSexMrnz2RunzN+pf4+zKol9xxq0MeEQFcMg+ZVH4FDSxw4SSeO/TW1PeMNt1kMrej0jfvqi4 /CqNEP0xmbw6tDW69NTTG5GfD9FuDUF12TuR20rLHeuZdifuXxaiGhhDgmqTvM+v9fvXDIa53tij0 xQl6PwL0HD37Xh5zVQsJDujnqFV1zFy7HFHDG+n1VyuI7TFAPylIiEZugVTe9vjbsZuq/7RYo5JrI d28oesPcQ==; Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:60562 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kBrKx-002UQX-2m; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:15:31 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2AFFE31B-ECF1-4871-A40E-BDD4D9B42A79" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Joseph Touch In-Reply-To: <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:15:26 -0700 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-Id: <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:15:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2AFFE31B-ECF1-4871-A40E-BDD4D9B42A79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, Mike, I=E2=80=99ve been using Word since 1988. Files from that time still = opened in Word through 2016; it=E2=80=99s been simple to open those .doc = in that version and save them in .docx - the ONE transition that=E2=80=99s= been required in the intervening 32 years. I can say that about NO other format except raw ASCII. However, since you raised the point, I thought we were talking about the = very useful difference between the authoring format and the archive = format. I proposed that the RFC Editor should start supporting Word as = an authoring format. Publication of an RFC is equivalent to compilation. That step can take = more time because it occurs once; we should be optmizing the other sides = of the process - modern editing and persistent archiving, and not try to = confuse the two. And to be clear - the only way IETF=E2=80=99s XML will be renderable in = 30 years is if someone from THIS community continues to support that.=20 Joe > On Aug 28, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Hi Joe -=20 >=20 > Somewhere around 20+ years ago I watched in horror as one of the = technical groups associated with the the US DOD adopted WordPerfect as = its publication format. You can guess how that turned out. >=20 > We use XML with an easily interpreted schema as an archival = publication format because the chances of someone being able to = interpret it in 20 years is near unity. The same cannot be said for = Word, nor does "Word" specify the actual publication format given that = Microsoft feels the need to change both its UI and its format at rest = with each and every major version. >=20 > I hate authoring in XML - but I'm pretty sure that it will be = renderable in some form in 30-50 years. >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 > On 8/28/2020 8:34 PM, Joseph Touch wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine > wrote: >>>=20 >>> To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format = because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring = format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more = effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and = better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for other = stuff. >>=20 >> That=E2=80=99s why I support the Word format, FWIW. >>=20 >> I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, = but that=E2=80=99s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) = makes it impossible to generate =E2=80=9Cnon-compiling XML=E2=80=9D that = can=E2=80=99t easily be untangled. >>=20 >> Joe >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_2AFFE31B-ECF1-4871-A40E-BDD4D9B42A79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi, = Mike,

I=E2=80=99ve = been using Word since 1988. Files from that time still opened in Word = through 2016; it=E2=80=99s been simple to open those .doc in that = version and save them in .docx - the ONE transition that=E2=80=99s been = required in the intervening 32 years.

I can say that about NO other format = except raw ASCII.

However, since you raised the point, I thought we were = talking about the very useful difference between the authoring format and the archive format. I proposed that the RFC Editor should = start supporting Word as an authoring format.

Publication of an RFC is equivalent to = compilation. That step can take more time because it occurs once; we = should be optmizing the other sides of the process - modern editing and = persistent archiving, and not try to confuse the two.

And to be clear - the = only way IETF=E2=80=99s XML will be renderable in 30 years is if someone = from THIS community continues to support that. 

Joe


On = Aug 28, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:

=20 =20
Hi Joe -

Somewhere around 20+ years ago I watched in horror as one of the technical groups associated with the the US DOD adopted WordPerfect as its publication = format.   You can guess how that turned out.

We use XML with an easily interpreted schema as an archival publication format because the chances of someone being able to interpret it in 20 years is near = unity.    The same cannot be said for Word, nor does "Word" specify the actual publication format given that Microsoft feels the need to change both its UI and its format at rest with each and every major version.

I hate authoring in XML - but I'm pretty sure that it will be renderable in some form in 30-50 years.

Mike


On 8/28/2020 8:34 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:


On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine = <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process and better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for other stuff.

That=E2=80=99s why I support the Word format, = FWIW.

I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, but that=E2=80=99s a 1x investment. Word = (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) makes it impossible to generate =E2=80=9Cnon-compiling XML=E2=80=9D that can=E2=80=99t easily be = untangled.

Joe


--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

= --Apple-Mail=_2AFFE31B-ECF1-4871-A40E-BDD4D9B42A79-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 20:29:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32E23A0F7C for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y9h9QR4Oo8_m for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C9E93A0F79 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BdhmM5x8Rz6GBxC; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1598671795; bh=asZx1PfVQKiMamit27DdaKMdBsy3cpMzzkByRVstESE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=emYtUc1C/NCqUZWvFTJtJ9oh2TkCEC/5wnZCpRxfX6/eMqYrj9HvWzNO/o07oie82 0JaMqXhN9e0Uv0/kD8mb22xMxEHWxBkIBKBZra3/sFyFDu/LDpgufriIY92K6RkiPj QmLndhwbqHR3piDTmMMF5Uf8lk+pAl4ZGKtLdeXY= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BdhmM1yQMz6G7h8; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT) To: Joseph Touch Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:29:54 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:29:58 -0000 As far as I know, the RFC Editor does not themselves support any of the various authoring tools / toolchains. Various people provide various tools. The IETF has been, and I think should be, agnostic as to what tool authors use to prepare I-Ds. (The one complication is that multi-author teams do need to agree on what tools they will use.) The one time I had to work with a substantial RFC prepared in Word, it was a disaster. And when the author who wanted to use Word moved on, the new pen-holder found it easier to go through the trouble of converting to XML than to try to get word to cooperate. (Admittedly, Word has gotten a lot better since then.) But to paraphrase the above, the RF Editor does not tell the IETF what tools to use to author I-Ds. Yours, Joel On 8/28/2020 11:15 PM, Joseph Touch wrote: > Hi, Mike, > > I’ve been using Word since 1988. Files from that time still opened in > Word through 2016; it’s been simple to open those .doc in that version > and save them in .docx - the ONE transition that’s been required in the > intervening 32 years. > > I can say that about NO other format except raw ASCII. > > However, since you raised the point, I thought we were talking about the > very useful difference between the *_authoring_* format and the > *_archive_* format. I proposed that the RFC Editor should start > supporting Word as an authoring format. > > Publication of an RFC is equivalent to compilation. That step can take > more time because it occurs once; we should be optmizing the other sides > of the process - modern editing and persistent archiving, and not try to > confuse the two. > > And to be clear - the only way IETF’s XML will be renderable in 30 years > is if someone from THIS community continues to support that. > > Joe > > >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Michael StJohns > > wrote: >> >> Hi Joe - >> >> Somewhere around 20+ years ago I watched in horror as one of the >> technical groups associated with the the US DOD adopted WordPerfect as >> its publication format. You can guess how that turned out. >> >> We use XML with an easily interpreted schema as an archival >> publication format because the chances of someone being able to >> interpret it in 20 years is near unity. The same cannot be said for >> Word, nor does "Word" specify the actual publication format given that >> Microsoft feels the need to change both its UI and its format at rest >> with each and every major version. >> >> I hate authoring in XML - but I'm pretty sure that it will be >> renderable in some form in 30-50 years. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 8/28/2020 8:34 PM, Joseph Touch wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:03 PM, John R Levine >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> To perhaps clarify, I think that xml2rfc is an OK publication format >>>> because of all the semantic tagging, but it's a terrible authoring >>>> format. If it were up to me (and I had 20/20 hindsight) I would put >>>> more effort into thinking about the entire document creation process >>>> and better tools to let people use the editing tools they use for >>>> other stuff. >>> >>> That’s why I support the Word format, FWIW. >>> >>> I understand the back-end pubs process is harder when it goes to RFC, >>> but that’s a 1x investment. Word (or word-like, e.g. OpenOffice) >>> makes it impossible to generate “non-compiling XML” that can’t easily >>> be untangled. >>> >>> Joe >>> >> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > From nobody Fri Aug 28 20:36:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8B03A0FBA for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1r5mZFOrMtrW for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4EF43A0F84 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id s16so1128578qtn.7 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:36:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=POazd1m3rIDQBV1qEShjgYYyd1ZQrYPzJ7McKtKv9N4=; b=MsMGMsTF40nijnH9o4MCx3g9+xVzMeUuWFOTqr4OyB5Vc+g6z47oFjdsDcDmWw5sL/ G5ISp8XBN+DbNfBFYVQorNqknpS+S1oeDHiVzJ61nteHxzC139y6blq3vIvrcpsBoMtj xXTaXYXJyPtyb967nZU+/iw86z5+lRF6Ipw4doUQ8s06EbYtCGg10iTkq0madZ4aUi/u E4UiBcefYE48ASaJIroK/Yd36rmYXQSeBbkHxEuhA6SXnO47+40EzQgKqQNRNPIZxfnD 2c1QvPiQ2K9RjhQ/qtW5cegKLL1F99rdu2xyQou1aTR+JB7dEx74y1A5zwcKb6UK1FG9 /kEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=POazd1m3rIDQBV1qEShjgYYyd1ZQrYPzJ7McKtKv9N4=; b=PaOIWFwbUrH1+I4WWogCVo6KyawvDmPeUv3rzmH2jpx7WdAj55hnB+HAST8oJw0SHJ +bDiEdsia8J+w+dn/u45U3ZTWTy4xLbtG5jPU7wAQMIyOA768V4twMd2zzJa6uRSUBnT NRSht0i/kMRb3XajIl00pwaWV/1RjlWW/7CCS4Ks8ybDVUUyZJw/esXOx9epd5yQh2Gu c4VjBHB0miDHwn91kjmHJPM+vEyDCy0MLtfwO3n6B0FIWzEyiwrZLpse8nEGJ3oeQdW8 OCtN1HUU4uOC3s9zfc1kgf1Mrak982YKqeRRI3I0uDKzTSq/P2R0eFwHN1PYze/I0I4x KusQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tW6zRDY3T+J/aNiKnDTZbJBHjdZe+QTYCyUBS/v5iVl7W53Gm k0qTv7jyVQIsGhplxj4M15IsiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXPfw5lBAkLiCjdjjJZzJHLCUYY1Ot0XkP154P6+ZWyKq3S5wr89TmVgYAYaw7zfGAg4LAtA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e2f:: with SMTP id d15mr4388905qtw.125.1598672159335; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:18b:300:36ee:9c5b:6157:aa76:4fd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k185sm1005594qkc.77.2020.08.28.20.35.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.26\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:35:57 -0400 Cc: Joseph Touch , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.26) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:36:06 -0000 FWIW, one flow that I=E2=80=99ve seen work pretty well is to do the = editing in Google Docs, which has similar features to Word, but is = portable and supports simultaneous editing. The usual mode is to use the = RFC markdown format rather than XML, because it=E2=80=99s easier to = edit. This can be extracted as a text file and run through markdown = whenever a new version needs to be generated, so it=E2=80=99s pretty low = stress compared to trying to extract a Word document=E2=80=99s = formatting. I think Word works pretty well if everybody is using it and nobody tries = to do anything fancy, but it wouldn=E2=80=99t work well in an IETF = context because probably fewer than half of participants run Windows, = and compatibility issues between Word on Windows and Word on Mac are = kind of par for the course. OpenOffice does a surprisingly good job, but = is not pleasant to use. But the multiple editors feature of Google Docs = makes the choice really obvious. It would be nice if someone wrote a tool that allowed us to edit the XML = directly with the same suggesting/commenting/editing capability that = Word and Google Docs provide, but I don=E2=80=99t think that=E2=80=99s = within the IETF=E2=80=99s capabilities. From nobody Fri Aug 28 20:53:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D546F3A103E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipLYy-rMM34u for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE123A103C for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:53:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nuLkGkn53J2DoGNuIE5sBqTIKQzcdO6qhUsQCOtPyTo=; b=10HkcUs/xESXvcg2/ZiSMAI4v DLQc3j/NwHrlrT76gUiBIMEWJ8VZOCLiowrayU4P0Zp6Na5ArxDePQvCwE8z12t6E7g4HGxsOwCLC rn8StekXaVqf4t2OQn5GvEZSd3l1ty/t9Zjg0TrNjFfVGDq3tFmB740NTcpn/BF94lpnwJKyVFJdm GA9hJT9gFR645BJe3+2TxqXWd306p3YUNm0mcI/qlsc7HtZMQ417rnpyK1ytKADdG+yM+PJXbi9GY 4FudS7EmezT+SwZ5xvuF1PNmYXvWInlPRCOoPApCoND9VVNOUWpt5qhY6hMZOuoYBhukItzoLmxSB TuUysS/Tg==; Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:63550 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kBrvi-0032JQ-W7; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:53:31 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Joseph Touch In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:53:26 -0700 Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <62FE4458-0F39-4678-BEB3-5545A4E9BBD2@strayalpha.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:53:34 -0000 The RFC Editor is indirectly involved in constraining author formats by = limiting them to IETF XML or TXT=20 Currently, we can submit in raw IETF XML source or ASCII text formatted = per RFC 7994. Those choices constrain authoring tools to systems that = can emulate a 1970s line printer or edit 1970=E2=80=99s style source = code. Joe= From nobody Fri Aug 28 21:01:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9613A1046 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83GrTmoETz0v for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90493A1045 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id 92so1148593qtb.6 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=c3z8FfC0A+ZQrhDnMEWYH0ulyqm0p5GUHZrAxfPy0/g=; b=XeVPmMdZo66VWPe8nfYNSRmDm23lHKyH/17tLy0cG6Yy2X8RjIUDl+Eeb8kcJg8VJW 3clAFnLQm1dvWqdr94BdvBWOpaS1+H63I+JBUrCVCa3rOHLYRnJFJEL2v2DTZcPcYL4X yRXO+CSKriBujZOKnKzQW3vtuUScnE4f7JO9lZ6uT7KXxrHNw6gVrU6QAMF4QZyz+Qpc a2x7oouJAB7wtVxQzQDAhTa7FH9f2OJKavYHerUwzcj/3Grn+wYR7QroFrlvTCW2oCqQ Ccg5SjKX1R463yDq64X5ppf5eJu9DtfdQdaeHU53k9CqoP2zbu0IsydLohBjwQOP96Yx nBUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=c3z8FfC0A+ZQrhDnMEWYH0ulyqm0p5GUHZrAxfPy0/g=; b=P2AB6pQbgpT0iGX+67b2Q4sdDpStJH1FtvyT9iFZrgPaBzZ/6y+U8bA3lg+dLhTWfi VMlp5QB4SLUKxcFW1/QtSr5yAlyJ3mmOK98jtlWS/Tqz6LNeh+2RUFYzf4y/Pa2i6vRU Dbs0QIMeT76tHMmQVCOOXdaC4qi4fFLQRgYvC4Clka/fWV9rLfsfAnLT3nADA6/qQjTd IDBRdzCfT11I8HIiN0CRZDW1RIl5tNkqo1U8ekDZNrW3ehfwORYqvMjeAa8A7+CqV9vA VBN1PjSI3N+XybBTEeZXMaTMDmGe2dAAoJzv/g/5K6DzBnNwOG6T6iQE6h2jAP58crLP MiqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Gwx2CZ2izwI76+L41QTuYFnjz4gJD/rW6JquGVWpgwEuyDbkT +BKg55kbUzyfnzVDnR2BdL2xwg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2WU4HOg4RpsLaGA8pdtxpHomRs/1jhh/ES43lQUtLi9K5fXbdMlX2pFTHehxAEjVOdOXPzw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1204:: with SMTP id x4mr4394540qti.322.1598673658647; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:18b:300:36ee:583e:11fa:326:ee82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q26sm1269323qtq.91.2020.08.28.21.00.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ted Lemon Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC4F6B9D-3E03-464C-9C74-C546D6C8EA29" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.26\)) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:00:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <62FE4458-0F39-4678-BEB3-5545A4E9BBD2@strayalpha.com> Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org To: Joseph Touch References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> <62FE4458-0F39-4678-BEB3-5545A4E9BBD2@strayalpha.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.26) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 04:01:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AC4F6B9D-3E03-464C-9C74-C546D6C8EA29 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Aug 28, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Joseph Touch wrote: > Currently, we can submit in raw IETF XML source or ASCII text = formatted per RFC 7994. Those choices constrain authoring tools to = systems that can emulate a 1970s line printer or edit 1970=E2=80=99s = style source code. It sounds like you=E2=80=99re arguing that RFCs should be in Word .doc = format. If you are not, then what you=E2=80=99ve said doesn=E2=80=99t make = sense. Any tool that generates text in a form that can be mechanically = transformed into the XML source will do. There are actually Word = document parsers that can be made to do this. Probably could also be = done for Google Doc, which has the better feature set. However, the work involved in making this happen would be more than the = work involved in just doing markdown. So we just do markdown. It=E2=80=99s= not work the effort to fix it, or we would have done. --Apple-Mail=_AC4F6B9D-3E03-464C-9C74-C546D6C8EA29 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Aug 28, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
Currently, we = can submit in raw IETF XML source or ASCII text formatted per RFC 7994. = Those choices constrain authoring tools to systems that can emulate a = 1970s line printer or edit 1970=E2=80=99s style source = code.

It = sounds like you=E2=80=99re arguing that RFCs should be in Word .doc = format.

If you = are not, then what you=E2=80=99ve said doesn=E2=80=99t make sense. Any = tool that generates text in a form that can be mechanically transformed = into the XML source will do. There are actually Word document parsers = that can be made to do this. Probably could also be done for Google Doc, = which has the better feature set.

However, the work involved in making = this happen would be more than the work involved in just doing markdown. = So we just do markdown. It=E2=80=99s not work the effort to fix it, or = we would have done.

= --Apple-Mail=_AC4F6B9D-3E03-464C-9C74-C546D6C8EA29-- From nobody Fri Aug 28 21:38:34 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6655A3A1076 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O5Gljk9XA1Us for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 274903A1075 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:38:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9PRbfHTUnj/fJfMzQPPZ8dSc/jPtL2CPR1S+8BVPnU4=; b=kK8Ko0lRmBJitmmCzb/kjUXUO qzJ59r258REkMGmI+NhfpqojpaasPZC4VZDvraaT1hCgHjjKOFVziKbg9xCW6KFL2UUT0JX6yS6Zb mlkPYgsJCPGwnL6VH0sSo0l6TlBFQdAT6ZDHMpITD5h4gTk74Av99obH1K9U1I6dSBK8b4MHJD83R N8RY3BML8RJXplSZBgwmRmIxHfhEbuLffXeRhuDM9In/8v0GIoO7U54ugagPiLWZC7wp3wkF0aXEm IRmK5CiCLCwz/dPBnHo0dOMN88uVHhF+T6SErmu2x8KqnqMsCW5gR0+DQqW1iEO3oDTLWJX/qaA2Z mrHOUXpZw==; Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:49768 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kBsdG-003lCp-Dt; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:38:30 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A50F05EC-7641-4070-B96C-D5517E07439E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Joseph Touch In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:38:25 -0700 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, "Joel M. Halpern" Message-Id: <7809C80A-0ACF-48F5-9B68-EB934F90DD91@strayalpha.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <1858EDDB-1940-43DD-83FC-45EBFF46C936@strayalpha.com> <28f74343-0cb8-2e12-6c5e-7325747a9317@nthpermutation.com> <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> <62FE4458-0F39-4678-BEB3-5545A4E9BBD2@strayalpha.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 04:38:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A50F05EC-7641-4070-B96C-D5517E07439E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 28, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >=20 > On Aug 28, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Joseph Touch > wrote: >> Currently, we can submit in raw IETF XML source or ASCII text = formatted per RFC 7994. Those choices constrain authoring tools to = systems that can emulate a 1970s line printer or edit 1970=E2=80=99s = style source code. >=20 > It sounds like you=E2=80=99re arguing that RFCs should be in Word .doc = format. Authorable in that format; not published in it.=20 > If you are not, then what you=E2=80=99ve said doesn=E2=80=99t make = sense. Any tool that generates text in a form that can be mechanically = transformed into the XML source will do. There are actually Word = document parsers that can be made to do this. Probably could also be = done for Google Doc, which has the better feature set. >=20 > However, the work involved in making this happen would be more than = the work involved in just doing markdown. This is like arguing that a compiler doesn=E2=80=99t save work vs. = writing in assembler. > So we just do markdown. It=E2=80=99s not work the effort to fix it, or = we would have done. If everyone agrees, sure. Point raised, point ignored. Point taken. Joe --Apple-Mail=_A50F05EC-7641-4070-B96C-D5517E07439E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On Aug 28, 2020, at 9:00 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> = wrote:

On Aug 28, 2020, at = 11:53 PM, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
Currently, we = can submit in raw IETF XML source or ASCII text formatted per RFC 7994. = Those choices constrain authoring tools to systems that can emulate a = 1970s line printer or edit 1970=E2=80=99s style source = code.

It = sounds like you=E2=80=99re arguing that RFCs should be in Word .doc = format.

Authorable in that format; not published in = it. 

If you = are not, then what you=E2=80=99ve said doesn=E2=80=99t make sense. Any = tool that generates text in a form that can be mechanically transformed = into the XML source will do. There are actually Word document parsers = that can be made to do this. Probably could also be done for Google Doc, = which has the better feature = set.

However, the work = involved in making this happen would be more than the work involved in = just doing markdown.

This is like arguing that a compiler doesn=E2=80=99t= save work vs. writing in assembler.

So we just do markdown. = It=E2=80=99s not work the effort to fix it, or we would have = done.

If everyone agrees, sure. Point raised, point = ignored. Point taken.

Joe

= --Apple-Mail=_A50F05EC-7641-4070-B96C-D5517E07439E-- From nobody Sat Aug 29 01:08:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653A03A11E3 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 01:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IaoSuCu3NuzE for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 01:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31EE3A11E2 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 01:08:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2032; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598688529; x=1599898129; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EhvOg4FzhEiMkATw8nxQroTZHsKyGhbKaJX513USdNQ=; b=GBJHPKQiTMSTNwOkbKYZ02sdqz5LWDVuB+FuNSWNtrwqImHDuhSfOWeg uVwG3wPhbTLhB9+Llg90t/vWm6l4kJRHRFcqlkAm25V83roUGhJwof4jQ 6vAF/nJAswYh1yoC1WmUwhYrqPG28vTVSNDl26rRlmSpKI6QvnQlssHwQ o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIBwCFDEpf/xbLJq1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgUqDbgEgEiyEOIkBiBclnBwLAQEBDAEBLwQBAYRMAoJKJTg?= =?us-ascii?q?TAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVohXIBAQQBI0gOBQsZBAYCAiYCAkkOBhMUgxK?= =?us-ascii?q?CXSCxOXaBMoVThR6BDiqNQIIAgTgMEIIfggOGPTOCLQSQKaZBgm+DDZclAx6?= =?us-ascii?q?SA45TinyjVINYAgQGBQIVgWsjN4EgMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDZxoPwMwNwIGAQk?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMJkUYBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,367,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="29149791" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Aug 2020 08:08:45 +0000 Received: from [10.61.230.208] ([10.61.230.208]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07T88iLw005528 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:08:45 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:08:44 +0200 Cc: John R Levine , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> To: Eric Rescorla X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.230.208, [10.61.230.208] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Community, expert, project management, and architecture X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:08:51 -0000 Hi! Thanks, John, for reminding us of what you are doing and what may well = need doing later. I hate going into the weeds, and this conversation is = very much there, but I want to highlight one aspect of all of this, = before the chairs pull out the lawn mowers ;-) I am going to use you, John, and you EKR to try to bring into focus the = role of the experts and the role of the community. > On 29 Aug 2020, at 01:13, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 > Not totally sure I agree on the publication format, but 100% agree on = the authoring format. I think you=E2=80=99re right to say that you are not sure you agree on a = publication format. Do you even know what questions to ask to determine = the answer? I sure don=E2=80=99t. Let=E2=80=99s envision a scenario where the community decides, =E2=80=9Cwe= want tooling that can take as input common forms of author editing = tools such as Word, Google Docs, emacs, vi, and whatever comes next.=E2=80= =9D (Mike, we=E2=80=99ll leave Word Perfect on the cutting room floor = for a moment ;-). We further say, =E2=80=9CWe want the tooling to = produce an output suitable for publication.=E2=80=9D This would involve someone coming up with a considered architecture, = someone or someones developing a plan, someone executing that plan, = someone overseeing the execution, someone answering questions, managing = variances that will surely arise, and addressing evolving circumstances. If a variance arises, how agile must our process be to address that? = Would a WG have to answer questions about all variances? Would rough = consensus have to be achieved? Would work stop in the meantime? If we = say that the WG must approve only those variances that seem to change = the architecture, who decides that question? Where does the community want to have a voice in all of this, and where = do we want to delegate? How would this work with each of the approaches we find in the current = drafts today? Eliot= From nobody Sat Aug 29 02:00:19 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF3D3A124E for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqU_6xV-Pvhf for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B593A0DFA for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07T90Dst027570 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:00:13 +0100 Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2332203A for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:00:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264692203D for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:00:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.51.134.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 07T90CjW028821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:00:12 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:00:12 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AdZ94pQYLlXEIJVQReqUIaphEsYX5g== X-Originating-IP: 84.51.134.114 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25632.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No-1.376-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No-1.376-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25632.006 X-TMASE-Result: 10-1.376300-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: /o8f6CzNmOhVgvPF+pl3rS0UvD/exuSe6uVri61Nit9vNs77F4nIWikY CjsnGmPn7xLJm73AMlStVopQtOlIQ5MB+DYzXSi1PyaHVwjtlga6hgVvSdGKo05VgCZHWIPxo8W MkQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuPvaZcqB7SGX0C1sQRfQzEHEQdG7H66TyHEqm8QYBtMO/9BUbtPEGG5ZOf jPy82VJLi6Kac7Z98n+5zh/wIR2SGvY4BboIs67rHhMA9aDpuh/WyINg5Mqdqespy8+E36axTGL 4hzSr9RlExlQIQeRG0= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:00:17 -0000 Hi, Fascinating though the discussion of document formats is, perhaps having that discussion on rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org would free this list up for discussion of the thing we are supposed to be talking about. Not playing "list police", just saying. Best, Adrian From nobody Sat Aug 29 02:34:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CB73A1279 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:34:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9sl7YN7oxtW for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A7B3A1277 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 02:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BdrrS73G9zyb6; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:34:00 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620386440.073074-74530678313a41dd68fb5e9febc8222e Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> To: Adrian Farrel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:34:14 -0000 On 2020-08-29, at 11:00, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Fascinating though the discussion of document formats is, perhaps = having > that discussion on rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org would free this list up = for > discussion of the thing we are supposed to be talking about. Right. For the part here: What would have been the role of various = players in addressing the problem that has been discussed in this = thread? Here=E2=80=99s what an RSE might have done. (1) Sensing that there is a rather expensive (in expert-hours) = disconnect between the RFC production process and the authoring process. = (Well, OK, many people did sense a problem here, but weren=E2=80=99t = stating it this way =E2=80=94 see the subject of this message...) (2) Owning the problem and starting to work on an outline for improving = the connection to the authoring process. Looking at the way this is = handled in other places. Consulting with the community on what our = experiences are. Deriving objectives. (3) Addressing the problem. Not necessary by throwing out the baby and = keeping the bathwater. Or even starting a heavy, top-down program for = fixing this. Maybe soliciting (and guiding, integrating) some bottom-up = initiatives. Making sure these are aware about the objectives formed in = (2). (4) Facilitating the initiatives by getting communication between = themselves and with the community going. Maybe do kick off some = specific projects on re-focusing some existing approaches [example here: = SVG]. (5) Profit Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat Aug 29 08:24:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0469B3A0C68 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:24:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iATrn4aGrasc for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAFEE3A0C67 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee7459100741d7987eaab290c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e745:9100:741d:7987:eaab:290c]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kC2hy-0002HH-Kt; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:23:58 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <56a671fc-b075-2613-6649-5d5f5043e26f@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:23:57 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <731084A8-868C-4BA5-BEE9-C924526738B7@kuehlewind.net> References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> <56a671fc-b075-2613-6649-5d5f5043e26f@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1598714643;676cc2b4; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kC2hy-0002HH-Kt Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 15:24:05 -0000 Hi Mike, Thanks for writing this down. I find it actually very useful to have = these points clearly listed. I think it does show that we actually do = have some common views on the problems, at least regarding the = contractural part and the oversight of that.=20 My personal conclusion to that part is, I=E2=80=99d say, similar with = some other views expressed already but probably different to your = proposal, that the contractual PM work should be separated from the = strategic part of the work, where the PM is directly managed and = overseen by the LLC (now that we have it). Further, I would like to quickly comment on two points below. Regrading 5, I don=E2=80=99t think I very said that "the IAB is busy". = However the time commitment people on the IAB make is quite variable and = the people we usually select for the IAB are often quite busy with other = things already. This is a separate problem but I don=E2=80=99t think = this problem should finally guide our decision for the RFC model. And regarding point 6, I actually would like to response as a member of = the IAB even though I haven=E2=80=99t been an IAB member when most of = the previous things happened. Probably not all things went ideal here = but the IAB did take actions. After all the IAB asked the RSE to lead = the discussion about how to organise the process we are currently = performing and the IAB did, based on community advise, then establish = this group. Not sure which actions you would have expected from the IAB = but mostly finding a way to delegate to the right people is I would say = one of the common approaches the IAB usually takes. Mirja > On 28. Aug 2020, at 18:26, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > ~48 hours >=20 > On 8/26/2020 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> Hi Mike, hi all, >>=20 >>> On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns = wrote: >>>=20 >>> There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB = should be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is = that there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the = IAB. I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question = to Brian of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?=E2=80=9D >> Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I=E2=80=99= m well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I=E2=80=99m = uncertain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with = another body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by = even larger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed = as well. So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very = satisfying if someone just says =E2=80=9Cthere have been problems with = the IAB, so let remove the IAB=E2=80=9D. I would rather like to better = understand what you think the problems have been and how they are = addressed by your proposal. I do have my own thoughts but I first would = like to understand the thoughts of those people who have thankfully = written down a proposal. >=20 > Hi - >=20 > I *really* don't think this is a useful conversation. But you've = asked for some reason.. >=20 > 1) The IAB actually hasn't been involved in the RFC stuff since it = formed the RSOC. It handed off authority and responsibility, and left = it in a state of benign neglect. That worked surprisingly well until = the contractual relationship came under the purview of the LLC. I'm not = sure those are connected, but the timing is interesting. >=20 > 2) Structurally, none of the existing I* boards with the exception of = the LLC are set up to deal with personnel actions. To do those, you need = a fiduciary relationship with the person being managed. Right now the = LLC is in full on deferral mode to the IAB for this and that was at = least part of the problem - that the RSOC felt comfortable enough to = make personnel decisions two levels removed from the actual body that = would have to trigger the recompete. It also felt comfortable enough = that the IAB would support those decisions that they discussed them with = the RSE prior to ever getting IAB sign off. >=20 > 3) The IAB took action to reform the RSOC and AFAICT did so in a = vacuum with respect to the RSE. This appeared to be a fall out from the = failed RFC++ BOF which - according to what I understand from the = contract and various RFCs - shouldn't have happened in the way that it = did, without RSE input. In any event, the RSOC dropped I believe it = was the three members that were both a) sympathetic to the RSE and b) = had the most experience with the RFC series - a set of decisions that to = this day I have failed to make sense of. >=20 > 4) There needs to be a focus on the topic of publication that is = neither apparent from the current IAB membership, nor would be = consistent over the next say 6 or so IABs. While an IAB program focused = on the RFC series might provide useful input from the IAB's perspective = it continues to be unclear whether it actually would be viable (interest = wise) as a long term project. >=20 > 5) You've indicated at least 3 or 4 times that the IAB is busy. = Perhaps you should be looking to this not as losing authority, but as = gaining time. This isn't actually an architecture thing and I find it = hard to place under the IAB's remit on that basis. >=20 > 6) And the most important - the IAB took no actions to remediate the = problems. It's unclear that it has the structural ability to do so. >=20 > Later, Mike >=20 >=20 >> Mirja >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Sat Aug 29 09:02:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E313A0D47 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:02:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.319 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AjSriHPotuYj for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183FA3A0D40 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=PV9bPfNPHb6vobDxLGExxGOp1j1d0tvoX4V6g5cWAiw=; b=OJHnhNfH6Zn8NkuFbQKOozG8yU 4UqbT8rqwINNQ9hykTlxDuyWJGAdoUDBabpWolN4FJKU2FabqUTK5zVNzQGpfPCG4ED/h6cAM7Fvi J8N/+oreVf1Br+XzxYCVQYFsL5KcTGiiBwos25rvCzfE5VAwHOv7mjpa7p8NftcOUwgqY9XhF3cTO RLtluebu4Qvhm3iqVA9rCGpgN2B9Bmzi1VWaHaDPy2UFcs8Or/Y7cvtxEv5bMzLT7o2bI9U+4A2ki KYBVBz1VV/kFRY77KHyDK1sNpPPBX/uFNemOqKN+VdZ8kFf+lrwNv4IVjvjNUUS3pF78lAX1Byd86 c+r51iHg==; Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:50086 helo=[192.168.1.6]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kC3JB-002IVF-Rx; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:02:30 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Joe Touch In-Reply-To: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:02:25 -0700 Cc: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org, John R Levine Message-Id: <20385278-3126-438E-A27A-40CF0714144B@strayalpha.com> References: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G80) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Community, expert, project management, and architecture X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:02:32 -0000 > On Aug 29, 2020, at 1:09 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >=20 > Let=E2=80=99s envision a scenario where the community decides, =E2=80=9Cwe= want tooling that can take as input common forms of author editing tools su= ch as Word, Google Docs, emacs, vi, and whatever comes next.=E2=80=9D (Mike,= we=E2=80=99ll leave Word Perfect on the cutting room floor for a moment ;-)= . We further say, =E2=80=9CWe want the tooling to produce an output suitabl= e for publication.=E2=80=9D >=20 > This would involve someone coming up with a considered architecture, someo= ne or someones developing a plan, someone executing that plan, someone overs= eeing the execution, someone answering questions, managing variances that wi= ll surely arise, and addressing evolving circumstances. They=E2=80=99re called publishers. We are very bad at this, for the reasons= you cite. Professional publishing houses do this for a living. Joe= From nobody Sat Aug 29 09:09:45 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE4B3A0C69 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=s1U8e+4h; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=P4LJMoTU Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88UWcG0ntxsN for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36DB33A0CA2 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 76000 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2020 16:09:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=128de.5f4a7dc1.k2008; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=MCQzZDtnf++AaDZTrGtudKV0Voia1xBRQL/yTDnSJiw=; b=s1U8e+4hdnB5FHimm1oBTNjz3GQvphL/WuKUIa5qMkqiwJ/sKDFWW45thNraDikInXtxN11mCC+JXYQdFsefRqBitdFd/udHdoRksN91uMSxVGMoOUVE3vO19W2BuOq6lSXjLEcoKzrztnEkXLLD8M8KlLS2hsgu2soosrW3MB99ex5LrjGnk/xOVw6cWKV1BuFP1gZGN0/32FSU+1CdMs1naufxhzO03AQIA3oP/VKZVDkjnz3d6Nck0OuE9VgCcTNrlVo0kEVrVIXldnqRmFTdMeEp3yUbnETw0OJ4P19K/oj5sIqN1gxWBtJq9CQss/Ohss2M+I6U3tut+1lhrQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=128de.5f4a7dc1.k2008; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=MCQzZDtnf++AaDZTrGtudKV0Voia1xBRQL/yTDnSJiw=; b=P4LJMoTUMXlpNNJBPofiAU5R3YA6lYQ9qAUjgMXUVDpY7zj/eH3+arkq5haMoOsMjfSDlipAzS2IndzNHGmTYVPX572Pi0Ugq/L5LIxLsehwSCdDPhaivL4dLp5loIIio9e7YY2NhC6nl+j/+qzYYmVI3ZZZCaKNNCi1uil4ns7VttfHikqEZxmmOsaBGye+LWiNLsEy5Teszj34YKEdQr2FZOju33gWr6iQDDBA2Kt7EoCq+KF/USspODHCZgQf/IfTDInH8dCCvGUcmloRvkQDRJzS5dFOZBUU7oPIw4qxL/DqTGypFLoRnSqkPnhK+MXZK1ra8ltgTG2NlksgEg== Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 29 Aug 2020 16:09:36 -0000 Date: 29 Aug 2020 12:09:36 -0400 Message-ID: <9cd087c4-a97d-b94e-c5ca-1ee442026a4@taugh.com> From: "John R Levine" To: "Eliot Lear" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> References: <78d71ac9-41ab-8700-338f-81a74912a28e@gmail.com> <20200828204636.3B7941F3DEBC@ary.qy> <4e34ce5d-4d6-bea1-543-8462fac4f13@taugh.com> <74d67cf5-4cd3-746e-9110-319e85285c2@taugh.com> <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1203589409-1598717376=:74939" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Community, expert, project management, and architecture X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:09:44 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-1203589409-1598717376=:74939 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT > I think you’re right to say that you are not sure you agree on a publication format. Do you even know what questions to ask to determine the answer? I sure don’t. The publication format belongs to the IAB, so we would ask them whether they are prepared to throw away the five years of work that produced RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and 7998 and start over, before the transition to the current format is even complete. Since I think we can all guess what the answer to that question would be, let's not. A more productive place to look is at the overall process that produces RFCs, from initial I-D's through adoption and revision and eventually publication. It is extremely strange that although we purport to be dedicated to open standards, our publication process mostly uses custom stuff used by nobody else in the world, e.g., xml2rfc, Carsten's markdown translators. Each time someone proposes we use tools that other people use, there's pushback for reasons some of what make sense but others that seem to me to be utterly hypothetical. (I do not think that Microsoft is likely to cripple github; they obviously bought it defensively to keep it away from Facebook.) I'd go up half a level and see if the community can figure out what its big picture goals are. Do we understand what community RFCs actually serve, both on the producing side and the consuming side. How is that process serving or not serving those communities. In some ways we're clearly in good shape, notably being the first SDO to offer free public access. But in others, not so much. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly --0-1203589409-1598717376=:74939-- From nobody Sat Aug 29 10:38:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEA63A0E3E for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vh8L0ruBkHcq for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf32.google.com (mail-qv1-xf32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968E13A0E3D for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf32.google.com with SMTP id l13so1116623qvt.10 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=XoPPg+WJGkqUGF3dTJjNVvgpTCnw3/aq3G3CJC/b2Iw=; b=06CyO23BBXJ0ogo2U6F9BGU1lKjvf72FL8nSnDYALABEUsJF9ztJoYBPg7w3z1HwXk Lj85xnTgLmbhJVStoLAiWNTPTCyoGrd1Ly4flknrSNZAu0nXrYZvh49lvWfqOvf9cDPc dMK4dFuxzgAKmOylYE373hmbjmWf5y7T5G/wgkIRexjnF4jM+Ecjw6IelGMltU6XNOL/ 1c+TR+zF4l5FvLNSE0FUMAyJc1R2Yxkpzru+L52cjyU1qVPkYHH/YWAVELzWIBkiMxn6 I5Bf2hdT3svOIptBa4r3mdkVpKxFI6sRQMt1grMyqyNaTlFhFvze0Iw7onMqcBPA09pA oR0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=XoPPg+WJGkqUGF3dTJjNVvgpTCnw3/aq3G3CJC/b2Iw=; b=MVmnz1mufkPPlkE0AMokOIIBNY6iQRbAKezx91N0LGQA+FCZs6Xk/p9qqIQlrEnfBA 48zbthzkMMaR8MVrLJKdaT69dCy8I412kBeSribS4dgI3q/kprv1JA9NclkF1np5qtLE t8CKtzF51N1ZXTUrU5Vc5T8W//ievVbb2n6C9aAiTrcO2DVp5x/z07jjZB4o4NfqL4dq /fB0EtDNXweE+GVQ+r6gRLgQDOJGrggO/NZk0CwGKz+DBTRbhUnQoVF7taQGNPCUpNur zisSqF5QXqMzRzLmYyxdEQz19T6RM/8m79ske7wz0GFrUDZ4LF+b8XxW15uPKtYXHZpx szcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312N4hK7yTJk9cLrxpJEunWqnVFz4unMtFrEB9AYl5kptkeGNlk okn5vvOgXCGGpcWR1H0J9k5KAEmLKRqHqLIgvSs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdB2jRhjbIgVVxT64EIljRp+2DpY12xkLayXBGlVSPB0LCKOLRQAJ7naHlgT7h/QqDGC52kg== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:a8c7:: with SMTP id h7mr3655994qvc.181.1598722681780; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-71-114-22-128.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.114.22.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l38sm3472033qtl.58.2020.08.29.10.38.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:38:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <10085448-5443-7641-26fc-4ee6692d39e0@nthpermutation.com> <8ED11081-C79C-4109-9231-A2656FD6F5F0@tzi.org> <4c12f347-b20d-1f22-6adf-0c2dbebbee88@nthpermutation.com> <1D917245-8DC0-42F0-A5FD-5E5945423F35@kuehlewind.net> <56a671fc-b075-2613-6649-5d5f5043e26f@nthpermutation.com> <731084A8-868C-4BA5-BEE9-C924526738B7@kuehlewind.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <0118a0ce-23f2-6393-e9dc-1910f4b948c0@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:37:59 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <731084A8-868C-4BA5-BEE9-C924526738B7@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Posted my draft X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:38:06 -0000 On 8/29/2020 11:23 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for writing this down. I find it actually very useful to have these points clearly listed. I think it does show that we actually do have some common views on the problems, at least regarding the contractural part and the oversight of that. > > My personal conclusion to that part is, I’d say, similar with some other views expressed already but probably different to your proposal, that the contractual PM work should be separated from the strategic part of the work, where the PM is directly managed and overseen by the LLC (now that we have it). I read this and I'm still not sure where you're drawing the line.   Mostly, I think that the LLC gets to decide how the contractual work related to the RFC series is managed.   The document I wrote calls that a Contract Monitor and allows the LLC to figure out the how of the process.  That role is not necessarily either a manager or an overseer - but is subject to the negotiation between the LLC and the contractors.  In the US at least, contractors do not have managers from the contracting organization, they have points of contact - at least according to the way the law is supposed to work. The strategy needs to be both consistent and derived from actual needs of the community.  The model where we hire someone to help craft that strategy and write it down and we pay for that work is not inconsistent with those goals.  We just then need checks and balances - the role in which my document places the RSEB. > > Further, I would like to quickly comment on two points below. > > Regrading 5, I don’t think I very said that "the IAB is busy". However the time commitment people on the IAB make is quite variable and the people we usually select for the IAB are often quite busy with other things already. This is a separate problem but I don’t think this problem should finally guide our decision for the RFC model. Sorry - I misread a comment by you and you are correct that you didn't say that.   But let me put it another way - the IAB was busy enough that it decided that putting together an RSOC was a better way of doing things than using their time. > > And regarding point 6, I actually would like to response as a member of the IAB even though I haven’t been an IAB member when most of the previous things happened. Probably not all things went ideal here but the IAB did take actions. After all the IAB asked the RSE to lead the discussion about how to organise the process we are currently performing and the IAB did, based on community advise, then establish this group. Not sure which actions you would have expected from the IAB but mostly finding a way to delegate to the right people is I would say one of the common approaches the IAB usually takes. Hind sight is 20/20, but I'm willing to take a stab.  I would have: 1) Suspended the RSOC pending an evaluation, returning RFC related functions to the IAB 2) Selected a panel of 3 or so people to do the evaluation, with at least one selected by folks like me who believed there was a problem, at least one selected by the RSOC not from their number, and at least one selected by the LLC from some of the more senior members of the community and given them access to all the data - including the purportedly "personnel" related data. 3) Had them provide a public report identifying issues (if any), suggested remediations, and explaining in the short run how we were going to move forward.  (Part of the latter did end up happening through the auspices of the RSOC - the temporary PM model, but really wasn't anything based on community consensus). I would have expected the group to reach out to the RSE in a similar model to the way the IAB did. Basically, take actions specifically to deconflict the IAB from the analysis of problems that might be rooted in the IAB. I will note also, that the previous IAB didn't even manage to follow its own procedures with the selection of the chairs for this current group,  leaving your IAB to appoint the second chair that had been promised only after sufficient commentary from the community. Later, Mike > > Mirja > > >> On 28. Aug 2020, at 18:26, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> ~48 hours >> >> On 8/26/2020 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>> Hi Mike, hi all, >>> >>>> On 26. Aug 2020, at 17:18, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>> >>>> There are two arguments in one here, the first is that the IAB should be trying to reduce its non-technical stuff, and the second is that there's a worked example of the problems with homing this at the IAB. I probably would have left this out except for Mirja's question to Brian of "why you think the IAB is not a good choice?” >>> Just do make it clear what the intention of my question was. I’m well aware of some of the problems in the past, however, I’m uncertain if just taking the IAB out of the game and replacing it with another body solves these problems. I believe problems were cause by even larger structural issues and we need to ensure those are addressed as well. So despite me being on the IAB or not, I find it not very satisfying if someone just says “there have been problems with the IAB, so let remove the IAB”. I would rather like to better understand what you think the problems have been and how they are addressed by your proposal. I do have my own thoughts but I first would like to understand the thoughts of those people who have thankfully written down a proposal. >> Hi - >> >> I *really* don't think this is a useful conversation. But you've asked for some reason.. >> >> 1) The IAB actually hasn't been involved in the RFC stuff since it formed the RSOC. It handed off authority and responsibility, and left it in a state of benign neglect. That worked surprisingly well until the contractual relationship came under the purview of the LLC. I'm not sure those are connected, but the timing is interesting. >> >> 2) Structurally, none of the existing I* boards with the exception of the LLC are set up to deal with personnel actions. To do those, you need a fiduciary relationship with the person being managed. Right now the LLC is in full on deferral mode to the IAB for this and that was at least part of the problem - that the RSOC felt comfortable enough to make personnel decisions two levels removed from the actual body that would have to trigger the recompete. It also felt comfortable enough that the IAB would support those decisions that they discussed them with the RSE prior to ever getting IAB sign off. >> >> 3) The IAB took action to reform the RSOC and AFAICT did so in a vacuum with respect to the RSE. This appeared to be a fall out from the failed RFC++ BOF which - according to what I understand from the contract and various RFCs - shouldn't have happened in the way that it did, without RSE input. In any event, the RSOC dropped I believe it was the three members that were both a) sympathetic to the RSE and b) had the most experience with the RFC series - a set of decisions that to this day I have failed to make sense of. >> >> 4) There needs to be a focus on the topic of publication that is neither apparent from the current IAB membership, nor would be consistent over the next say 6 or so IABs. While an IAB program focused on the RFC series might provide useful input from the IAB's perspective it continues to be unclear whether it actually would be viable (interest wise) as a long term project. >> >> 5) You've indicated at least 3 or 4 times that the IAB is busy. Perhaps you should be looking to this not as losing authority, but as gaining time. This isn't actually an architecture thing and I find it hard to place under the IAB's remit on that basis. >> >> 6) And the most important - the IAB took no actions to remediate the problems. It's unclear that it has the structural ability to do so. >> >> Later, Mike >> >> >>> Mirja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Sat Aug 29 12:34:19 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACAE3A0826 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:34:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiQ0SXbZWt6n for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCA9E3A08C0 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id r69so476005lff.4 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ldKlZbH0WTt6Tlg/MvezqwiKBd5vEz+SvoQhwgX3i/M=; b=w5FOswJwiDhT5QdOpASjoR+rRPVLR5GP3im4HHebli0TehuTibFn+y4GEWr8J6tjjj XkAXS+xCiM1eiIJReo+4K84EBaXcPklfIw8A80rMLZEbOfTduMvL33hYGtBoerc7FjPm q5cOg8ZbWYcgyC6clgULwmTTHPpWG6YIODYeFlsSvKOAPQvSqUUeHTy4ot3X0cwONtmK FNRrJ8OLhY1av7TpMtGJVnMblFnweYreOrbZzXwKd1tQgC016xukdFv4yyzy/FZ4Z1Xp GFgeClvZJWwEPqtmjrdvorlBdPDQ3U+DxzM9RKUV9KgHqlFbSSL3TlHagSwvvYsuhQba RLCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ldKlZbH0WTt6Tlg/MvezqwiKBd5vEz+SvoQhwgX3i/M=; b=Vadj25/GACaB7CjM1Up/0g+XVsy9o6XdEBINlbVxE6r9HnJb+q+e5IjAm9spunRoe5 tINxcg33mlV2cEwdgum6or3tdsc6vcm8fgTRx6BBKcI3RLnKH5QrKyn7Jh2fY0MbZvBC ZvS79tbd7itw4rF3GnFYy4mTBpWi2Hb1RmsM5NW+A2o2ZiOtB3tGXGt/2vLisDPjeDuu IvWkoOMEz56orkntgk1mcUse5g4qgKpIO4osJo8kZZpKcozKVOXqxnO5MYJi6ebFtixZ thZ/cGzfTneQZKKm580yP08Pnt4n5NPHCgau/UnE3qPtq5/s+xdGqU0Btcs6eMwF7d7H mc7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533F9Dw8igQChZJINquwTXnKdQSa8vEtjsasanROEXoXHbHNX0Ox VzXZnSr8FMQjuqevvU2mfzLhTQ0iheOYHDOpxufQZG5Cjt6bdw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwp03pkmLwXtD9nJOLYOzlXBVptw7+OsU8Qy7xBPfg5PYKhiugL8mrsV0AgIHNOOQIEt30+ibouEjwuRN/A1fw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2f3:: with SMTP id m19mr1109624lfq.14.1598729653793; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:34:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:33:37 -0700 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: Adrian Farrel , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001b48ab05ae0941c5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 19:34:18 -0000 --0000000000001b48ab05ae0941c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:34 AM Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-08-29, at 11:00, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Fascinating though the discussion of document formats is, perhaps havin= g > > that discussion on rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org would free this list up > for > > discussion of the thing we are supposed to be talking about. > > Right. For the part here: What would have been the role of various player= s > in addressing the problem that has been discussed in this thread? Here= =E2=80=99s > what an RSE might have done. > > (1) Sensing that there is a rather expensive (in expert-hours) disconnect > between the RFC production process and the authoring process. (Well, OK, > many people did sense a problem here, but weren=E2=80=99t stating it this= way =E2=80=94 see > the subject of this message...) > > (2) Owning the problem and starting to work on an outline for improving > the connection to the authoring process. Looking at the way this is > handled in other places. Consulting with the community on what our > experiences are. Deriving objectives. > > (3) Addressing the problem. Not necessary by throwing out the baby and > keeping the bathwater. Or even starting a heavy, top-down program for > fixing this. Maybe soliciting (and guiding, integrating) some bottom-up > initiatives. Making sure these are aware about the objectives formed in > (2). > > (4) Facilitating the initiatives by getting communication between > themselves and with the community going. Maybe do kick off some specific > projects on re-focusing some existing approaches [example here: SVG]. > > (5) Profit > This is indeed an interesting hypothetical. However, I would note that in this discussion we've touched on a number of other SDOs who have different toolchains: - Word-based [per John, ANSI, ISO, IEEE] - HTML-based [W3C, WHATWG, TC39] - LaTeX [C++] It seems natural to ask which, if any, of those SDOs engaged an external expert to assist in selecting/designing those toolchains? Do we know? -Ekr --0000000000001b48ab05ae0941c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:34 AM Carst= en Bormann <cabo@tzi.o= rg> wrote:
adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Fascinating though the discussion of document formats is, perhaps havi= ng
> that discussion on rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org would free this list up for > discussion of the thing we are supposed to be talking about.

Right. For the part here: What would have been the role of various players = in addressing the problem that has been discussed in this thread?=C2=A0 Her= e=E2=80=99s what an RSE might have done.

(1) Sensing that there is a rather expensive (in expert-hours) disconnect b= etween the RFC production process and the authoring process.=C2=A0 (Well, O= K, many people did sense a problem here, but weren=E2=80=99t stating it thi= s way =E2=80=94 see the subject of this message...)

(2) Owning the problem and starting to work on an outline for improving the= connection to the authoring process.=C2=A0 Looking at the way this is hand= led in other places.=C2=A0 Consulting with the community on what our experi= ences are.=C2=A0 Deriving objectives.

(3) Addressing the problem.=C2=A0 Not necessary by throwing out the baby an= d keeping the bathwater.=C2=A0 Or even starting a heavy, top-down program f= or fixing this.=C2=A0 Maybe soliciting (and guiding, integrating) some bott= om-up initiatives.=C2=A0 Making sure these are aware about the objectives f= ormed in (2).

(4) Facilitating the initiatives by getting communication between themselve= s and with the community going.=C2=A0 Maybe do kick off some specific proje= cts on re-focusing some existing approaches [example here: SVG].

(5) Profit

= This is indeed an interesting hypothetical. However, I would note that in t= his discussion we've touched on a number of other SDOs who have differe= nt toolchains:

- Word-based [per John, ANSI, ISO, IEEE]
- HTML-based [W3C, WHATWG, TC39]
- L= aTeX [C++]

It seems natural to ask which, if any, of those SDOs engaged an extern= al expert to assist in selecting/designing those toolchains? Do we know?

-Ekr=

--0000000000001b48ab05ae0941c5-- From nobody Sat Aug 29 12:54:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7E13A0FAA; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:54:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZ27bHhnein2; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.77.215.173] (115-189-81-198.mobile.spark.co.nz [115.189.81.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BD163A0FA8; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jay Daley Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 07:54:03 +1200 Message-Id: <0FEBE7FC-2662-4562-B821-EC34E0B3855D@ietf.org> References: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> Cc: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org, John R Levine In-Reply-To: <73563AEC-D448-4943-84C3-21D856D36E89@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Community, expert, project management, and architecture X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 19:54:08 -0000 Eliot > On 29/08/2020, at 8:08 PM, Eliot Lear w= rote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFHi! >=20 > Thanks, John, for reminding us of what you are doing and what may well nee= d doing later. I hate going into the weeds, and this conversation is very m= uch there, but I want to highlight one aspect of all of this, before the cha= irs pull out the lawn mowers ;-) >=20 > I am going to use you, John, and you EKR to try to bring into focus the ro= le of the experts and the role of the community. >=20 >> On 29 Aug 2020, at 01:13, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>=20 >> Not totally sure I agree on the publication format, but 100% agree on the= authoring format. >=20 >=20 >=20 > I think you=E2=80=99re right to say that you are not sure you agree on a p= ublication format. Do you even know what questions to ask to determine the a= nswer? I sure don=E2=80=99t. >=20 > Let=E2=80=99s envision a scenario where the community decides, =E2=80=9Cwe= want tooling that can take as input common forms of author editing tools su= ch as Word, Google Docs, emacs, vi, and whatever comes next.=E2=80=9D (Mike,= we=E2=80=99ll leave Word Perfect on the cutting room floor for a moment ;-)= . We further say, =E2=80=9CWe want the tooling to produce an output suitabl= e for publication.=E2=80=9D >=20 > This would involve someone coming up with a considered architecture, someo= ne or someones developing a plan, someone executing that plan, someone overs= eeing the execution, someone answering questions, managing variances that wi= ll surely arise, and addressing evolving circumstances. When you=E2=80=99re considering this, don=E2=80=99t forget that we have the r= ecently minted Tools Architecture and Strategy Team that is tasked with look= ing at some of these things.=20 --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director >=20 > If a variance arises, how agile must our process be to address that? Woul= d a WG have to answer questions about all variances? Would rough consensus h= ave to be achieved? Would work stop in the meantime? If we say that the WG m= ust approve only those variances that seem to change the architecture, who d= ecides that question? >=20 > Where does the community want to have a voice in all of this, and where do= we want to delegate? >=20 > How would this work with each of the approaches we find in the current dra= fts today? >=20 > Eliot > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Sat Aug 29 13:36:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D173A0FED for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Q/xCWc76; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=HEExzEz0 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DwO9P_f9Jcim for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F16533A0FE9 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 35604 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2020 20:36:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=8b12.5f4abc3f.k2008; bh=X9Nll3T+eAzOISuGh22Vs5tkrVENdJp1NFm87xHv5Oo=; b=Q/xCWc76eDR0tGpDgPeVJEBsW1gDp+Rp7M13y6qXsZ3e5CVJootXzObqwxjty0UKL4TELbOvhPoCmEQ8EkkrF9EwwpO7Fj/zEwHk0Xv8mVZ9s6hkBtSXxI/PkpvdFA0A+Sso+8r52JXfO7UphwRFoXt82sMBvQizzibThzb4vP5HW+i+jTTxkZrrLfzAEcl7L4rg5YbJSto0JeUyDYVWQ8M8loVtQFuG4yW15RS4umV3P0JcvGrzKrxuotP/UsMKJBOiDvkJx2FVTltWFY3VkDIwjOMeFUw4g8b30uv69uMYUO3EBF/z6l9PJPAFdiMx+j1jgNZ6E2+Y6WFiy7YH7Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=8b12.5f4abc3f.k2008; bh=X9Nll3T+eAzOISuGh22Vs5tkrVENdJp1NFm87xHv5Oo=; b=HEExzEz0DPxm38qiIFx9yiwaf+xaxvWsL4RfpudWmPYAwPCyaAHVTe6WcTxP9lPoRGOjMatPOPZxRcpBaU3BbgqmiBY7p/nRonGBK8iAErGrHBxexP0KC1L5vl2Li0wURR9OnLxTcAfYls+0NbwWW5FX7D2YsFhn+3jmE4I1kqYOGHKEqE+sUt4+64eKLqLW/EoQq1G+SmL/It4sv+HsXS890wEwQ7pXUaIe2ClJY16niUlreMkj4WR0JM/L5e5YaVas8+2jSJyWodlzkBX6cg5MhikCy3dMk65PtueI7KywxPjCo1ERLuFGmMkJSf8AagHxKX77xtYncEgIdxhXWg== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 29 Aug 2020 20:36:14 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6DE971F44659; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: 29 Aug 2020 16:36:14 -0400 Message-Id: <20200829203614.6DE971F44659@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org Cc: touch@strayalpha.com In-Reply-To: <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] what does archival mean, was My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 20:36:21 -0000 In article <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> you write: >I’ve been using Word since 1988. Files from that time still opened in Word through 2016; it’s been simple to open those .doc in that version and save them in .docx >- the ONE transition that’s been required in the intervening 32 years. > >I can say that about NO other format except raw ASCII. We troff users would take issue with that. I'm pretty sure I have troff source from the 1970s that I can still run through groff. More to the point, though, the DOC files from the 1980s were in a binary tokenized format while modern DOCX are zip archives of several XML files. They only thing they have in common is that Microsoft will sell you a program called Word that can read them. While that is swell for Microsoft's customers, it's not a great argument about stability. Again, if people want to use it for authoring I think investing in better tools to create xml2rfc directly or indirectly from Word would be fine, but authoring and publishing are different. >And to be clear - the only way IETF’s XML will be renderable in 30 years is if someone from THIS community continues to support that. Not at all -- when we're looking at archival formats, robustness is part of the discussion. Our format is based on XML, which is unlikely to be forgotten, and it's stored as UTF-8 which is equally unlikely to be undisplayable. So even if all of our tools disappear, you can just look at the XML and see the text, and if you wanted, reverse engineering the XML grammar to help render it better would not be hard. While I don't think DOCX will disappear either, it doesn't have the semantic tagging of our XML and I can tell you that it is not easy to find the text when you unzip the archive and look at the contents. The reason I'm going through all this is to point out that there is a lot of expertise in publishing that more IETFers don't have, and we should remember that there are often times when asking actual experts (not me) for advice is a good idea. R's, John From nobody Sat Aug 29 14:01:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6DD3A101C for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbdTFOHmUW7T for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D2D3A101A for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bf85Y4MPWzyc6; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 23:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 23:01:21 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620427681.082763-4222cc1e0c1d553c3353cf8fa92f27dd Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> To: Eric Rescorla X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 21:01:27 -0000 On 2020-08-29, at 21:33, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 > I would note that in this discussion we've touched on a number of = other SDOs who have different toolchains: >=20 > - Word-based [per John, ANSI, ISO, IEEE] > - HTML-based [W3C, WHATWG, TC39] > - LaTeX [C++] >=20 > It seems natural to ask which, if any, of those SDOs engaged an = external expert to assist in selecting/designing those toolchains? Do we = know? Well, I don=E2=80=99t. =20 (But a German professor can talk about any subject, so I=E2=80=99ll do = that.) Some of these organizations are rooted in international diplomacy (e.g., = ISO, IEC, ITU-T), so they usually have some rather formal rules for = document generation that are imposed on all their documents (these are = usually somewhat mixed up with their standardization processes). I=E2=80=99= m sure there will have been some interaction between the ISO editor, = however they are called these days, and JTC1/SC22/WG21 before they were = allowed to do their own toolchain for the C++ standards. ISO also is a publishing house (at least that is the main way they and = their member organizations make revenue), so the publishing side will be = more than =E2=80=9Can external expert=E2=80=9D. Apart from their own = standards development, they need a process to take in specifications = such as MS-OOX and (as an example from our world, say) OCF = specifications and publish them as ISO/IEC standards. IEEE is a professional organization that also makes a large amount of = its revenue by serving as a publishing house, so again there will be = some staff that will be guiding that side professionally. ANSI is mostly a franchising brand (and the US national member of ISO) = and not really an SDO. I=E2=80=99m sure INCITS and the other SDOs = running under that brand are getting some guidance on publishing from = the franchise owner. I haven=E2=80=99t worked on IEEE or ANSI (INCITS) documents, so I = don=E2=80=99t know much. ECMA is trying to play in the same league, but my contacts with that = organization diminished with the age of daisy-wheel printers [1]. Add = OASIS to that tier. The other organizations are not really making use of publishing. =20 They essentially are a website. =20 The IETF could go for =E2=80=9Cbeing a website=E2=80=9D, too. Or for = making its work available in a mix of publishing and =E2=80=9Ca = website=E2=80=9D (which, of course, is already true to some extent, e.g. = the IANA registries). The urge for such a move may be the 800-pound = gorilla that is deliberately outside of the scope of the effort this = mailing list is for. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten [1]: = http://ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-35,%204th%20= Edition,%20March%201985.pdf From nobody Sat Aug 29 14:11:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D633A1073 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:11:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KS2onB192Kzv for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 910B03A102A for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id 12so1484382lfb.11 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:11:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=25/CZ0clbPyv+MBB6Wz2XlgthAt9fQf8wH8taZtU7eQ=; b=lxLIl5yhp9ptuiFWeArjkD1rD8NHYl0YgqOaoFQE+nA0WyD5BKUqRNXl1Vsl4C8Vjv PYnPXOZLAXkRmqeNdX/5JlD8nMGiyRRp3jdb3nrJ82i7SD7kLTcCaX9ZXLcNbJj5Kkch 4BeMIL85M0hnBaKv72/9wgUyVNvmzG2tF36kKmwJYwO6KG8+mUPryokvX5cD2/Q1lzGR LbHMDaQ1KscPLafsOA5MwdDmXZrdbbbfFkKWTdj3yQxIb2W5XhxTs2h6yna933vtKHUN Wn+RtIHS0ovYRewCecBlvpoCsDFo8nKa0P5MSd6UKoZpsbfmTyEtwIETU6P5nMIrppxE N60Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=25/CZ0clbPyv+MBB6Wz2XlgthAt9fQf8wH8taZtU7eQ=; b=TyVWpsWxA/iVJVECyRdtGhL1dFfH0khlRWGlBOiW1rqMcnhwM0fMRHCz58/yac/Ho8 4p8N2l1y5jSu0JOcPB5Xh2Vc76qtnKlwKCk1ZI6AiVk/6BJkTpz9vtA47jDbqKq3zsh5 y6Vg3REJ1pmOIZP3eLY6UStLgmc9CkQBtmteEFe86i5S2fczjophTa97p8EuROGUK1f2 LIwafZmHfhSc+q1Y7JDbHRKsATxzdQst3dLe1pof95LRaOw5UM1Gw7eEBD43u1Lyp2/F eI9rmdb81zAojqPoYN+WH7mUe2w80Clbz9UemCW/ZZdiYR7QaE6/qFbLbduxDEDQicwr VPHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531f7GQ8eLhTMVV6XmSadNdlpZfMxpPSbeVr2PF/xp8G3v3KX5pV Jn7LQ5BalyEAAdxnERlFXI9hqigrMXSifQ70QnYcKQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrg5o+WJ1Tdjt8H2Wg1WdwAFV+Oo3Wgixeou8QHKKylSiir6EpR4+Dt3I+p24lYcIQB7208BCXE7ES1wvD6TU= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5382:: with SMTP id g2mr286741lfh.140.1598735463801; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:11:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 14:10:27 -0700 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068fcb505ae0a9b79" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 21:11:17 -0000 --00000000000068fcb505ae0a9b79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > > The other organizations [WHATWG, W3C -- EKR] are not really making use of > publishing. > They essentially are a website. > I'm not sure what distinction you are making here between "publishing" and "web site". They "publish" their documents on the Web. What characteristics do you believe distinguish these two? -Ekr --00000000000068fcb505ae0a9b79 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Carst= en Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:<= br>

The other organizations [WHATWG, W3C -- EKR] are not really making use of p= ublishing.=C2=A0
They essentially are a website.=C2=A0

= I'm not sure what distinction you are making here between "publish= ing" and "web site". They "publish" their document= s on the Web. What characteristics do you believe distinguish these two?

-Ekr

--00000000000068fcb505ae0a9b79-- From nobody Sat Aug 29 16:59:11 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF123A11DA for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlD_lcVnn2Eh for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BF5B3A11D9 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 31so2267699pgy.13 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jVQVdXfi6C8FRP+cvhfO2Sr0HR5EAeTg3Buf8+pZHn0=; b=sKIbOIrYRmq0x+C+yXDCQDJxAH8Vrc4Eu4ULPlDGm1//WECzhCKDd88Jj6fb+NjFyu o6phv6MDU/kQrV1A4AmxDjnP4Q2U0WEuHntHRYmwVWvC0gjGiOuLgfKD3O5GaQJaxHzk JH1ESV3vXCbT9WnaZ/FLhGN4kdFn++Y6Zj6qm2MYA7yvTne5wYqBN7SQxMBLMxY3CUSK 3w6JCTEx8GCsgGwG0I0nplMl0AIoqIu1k2DbhlETDjJM9jURao+P5aYSQ5VAjKY0n1Eo s9aUWkmRBBdwfXfviGAXZFdmj9MAsE+WnJ9bcfanU0dnfa7t+F1IoS48afxBc39w2VKH caTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jVQVdXfi6C8FRP+cvhfO2Sr0HR5EAeTg3Buf8+pZHn0=; b=n3wBwJ3IUHNMmJotTReHwpEtnuBM5jsMR2qchormTF83HFXM15xeBpP9S8mxCE7k+u eJ61DqssQEXAgU7dG9HKECXuEVy4RWTe7uwHmnBQdtIQW3QC7hHMZe/vrw7DspvfbTt1 9EN/VND9+YOE4gcEvLJZrVsGG8xl1JdB3dcji0V6145F6nAn2MvQq4sf8UHpx7QqvLIz mCMCdI5YdLjO8D+LHsdCfPhBwkbGKWGHaveN0JNbcDZeFpjm00ea58zPXQ+yVKoCyi/v W+uDFBcFfM93v9AOqHuhdceJ/q11wNr7wBS4d0qkJTciTsxLD/z6uGYCT7jvO8isOoEf aVOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5324kEGcKz8Mr2npFkFJSMLgK1IwTRqzOfa8BIzPPK6Bc8Z4RCW2 IRfTtFe1hZMQEE0hgbEF2xilZw5jL1Wj8Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCFu4VoArYs8IdkfO2N87EwlrvyfdtZSbtLOc5tOVsaSstMJcYlr7XjEOd4ttTTTEOnU6T9g== X-Received: by 2002:a63:3841:: with SMTP id h1mr3605227pgn.38.1598745548193; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 144sm3685467pfu.114.2020.08.29.16.59.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:59:07 -0700 (PDT) To: Eric Rescorla , Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <85ea85ea-331e-031c-9cc4-db9164d280d3@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:59:04 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 23:59:10 -0000 On 30-Aug-20 09:10, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Carsten Bormann > wrote: >=20 >=20 > The other organizations [WHATWG, W3C -- EKR] are not really making = use of publishing.=C2=A0 > They essentially are a website.=C2=A0 >=20 >=20 > I'm not sure what distinction you are making here between "publishing" = and "web site". They "publish" their documents on the Web. What character= istics do you believe distinguish these two? Precisely "web site". If the Web no longer existed they would have no rea= son to exist either. I think the IETF (and for that matter ANSI, ITU, ISO= , IEEE, C++...) might still exist. So we want a format that can be retrof= itted to papyrus or whatever comes next after the Web. Brian From nobody Sat Aug 29 18:48:06 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B443A12D7 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bf7VUwJ-eEsQ for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC8B3A12D4 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id c8so1648135lfh.9 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:48:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HgDNgr3Pr3wbe1+gj8Eg5Rer93YeuZ5OqSWK6DDVCY4=; b=0/EmqZK9ss0oPUJav22CdLEKSxnNJYnoDC0lsOXXRFX2OeoblcJESS52US9aphd6hs 2x9OqVnYJ6qf66YgHv/pYsSlTENhrHo+fTUoqPYDmW9dVD1CrF4Y2KV6JLhHCP7aW2dS 5r5B/8/2kl1tW0Icb+2/pGRdYNO5CIsOOWq6d4BN3Osj4BVopPb9sOWBxvtT7raFW9z0 NZikEnlmrP2gKy9N36G7I4ng/zCXQQPDqZvTmbnMw5sw+SnSU+Rn1qciM2FPOqyU4qP0 HyRaUkA5OZ86EQHQUHOAtt7OLjgVbrOIIKNgNVV4+HeTqUspQpDWI4A4aOddBfMTnXkz TOHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HgDNgr3Pr3wbe1+gj8Eg5Rer93YeuZ5OqSWK6DDVCY4=; b=N3f1XN89NZlh6kyxC3Cta/XUfdyyhbSo1OLXsETnPF+tYOZzvrjmI2uYsyOgATJUXm vSdESZmDCSYhp3Txpg9DRQjOPnxZnL6lcIuo59iwx4UAWk1KA/qJrXzQGpIh807F5QFP MC9/pZef4Bi+lN5xM4sLGIbktvcuJvH/zWI4OC0oBSE4b762fEbTdciGV2Z4aWo5ZwXF mmXf9pvEN4wArzDzdHpEWtagoZ+R1QRynMx3uhk/rszWGWOID7XBry4sR+gFhsklIk5v wS5bCh8q8VYiflbpg6zaRoSaxp0mPoCB1Qj7S9T06TjyRZrmAKzJ/gOl9d3kWI0UtSXH XdpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533TA6uC4O8EyG/XCtLgPeBiNffRSI1KDpvz525j6DjR+dn+39iN avaOVC8jmjkzb9kZB4mF/i6ZkF0dTLa65TtG/50qdw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNjZA+miz2JX0pHKDQFmVnI/ivC5nqXwrYSR0lDPFUxD0QuNtRjDxbg6hmGFTNIx8Huo/3iw1wH53ina8c8gQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2f3:: with SMTP id m19mr1572856lfq.14.1598752080888; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> <85ea85ea-331e-031c-9cc4-db9164d280d3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <85ea85ea-331e-031c-9cc4-db9164d280d3@gmail.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 18:47:24 -0700 Message-ID: To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd94f005ae0e7956" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 01:48:05 -0000 --000000000000dd94f005ae0e7956 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:59 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30-Aug-20 09:10, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Carsten Bormann cabo@tzi.org>> wrote: > > > > > > The other organizations [WHATWG, W3C -- EKR] are not really making > use of publishing. > > They essentially are a website. > > > > > > I'm not sure what distinction you are making here between "publishing" > and "web site". They "publish" their documents on the Web. What > characteristics do you believe distinguish these two? > > Precisely "web site". If the Web no longer existed they would have no > reason to exist either. I think the IETF (and for that matter ANSI, ITU, > ISO, IEEE, C++...) might still exist. So we want a format that can be > retrofitted to papyrus or whatever comes next after the Web. > Well, this is not true for TC39 (JavaScript is used widely outside the Web), and yet it uses the same publication structure. -Ekr > Brian > > --000000000000dd94f005ae0e7956 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:59 PM Brian= E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30-Aug-20 09:10, Eric Rescorla wrote:<= br> >
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:01 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org <mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> wrote:
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The other organizations [WHATWG, W3C -- EKR] are no= t really making use of publishing.=C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0They essentially are a website.=C2=A0
>
>
> I'm not sure what distinction you are making here between "pu= blishing" and "web site". They "publish" their doc= uments on the Web. What characteristics do you believe distinguish these tw= o?

Precisely "web site". If the Web no longer existed they would hav= e no reason to exist either. I think the IETF (and for that matter ANSI, IT= U, ISO, IEEE, C++...) might still exist. So we want a format that can be re= trofitted to papyrus or whatever comes next after the Web.
=

Well, this is not true for TC39 (JavaScript is used wid= ely outside the Web), and yet it uses the same publication structure.

-Ekr


=C2=A0 =C2=A0Brian

--000000000000dd94f005ae0e7956-- From nobody Sun Aug 30 00:25:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FE53A14F0 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 00:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hMSbtnQA9pRK for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 00:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF8453A1137 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 00:25:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=341; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598772303; x=1599981903; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iqhPv2Ki5o1L3zaBUnEl2YDzQx6gkgtn2pSBDuCKcVQ=; b=KDK6ezBNU3R+85F8FwRUsUaYXKJU4fXz9cGKzXUxXGsxjpz5Cbcn0XbL QXN2EBC5330hCIrPImUgkCrwXkCKTMANyz183CsPIgMpEaPOsYXVjxYkr 64h1KOa4TBWazjYV7aPnP7Xb3urGtNVh8k9AhLAHwK3A/N6IRSdvTIIU3 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DRAgCnU0tf/xbLJq1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgUqDbgEgEo1lonCBaQsBAQEMAQEvBAEBhEwCgkolOBMCAwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthWiFcwY6PxALDh8ZVwaDOYJ9sAR0gTSFU4UTgTiNQII?= =?us-ascii?q?AgTgcgh8uPoN2Rz+DC4ILIgS2aoJvgw2XJQMegncBjwuOU4VgqHCDWAIEBgU?= =?us-ascii?q?CFYFrI4FXMxoIGxU7KgGCPz0SGQ2caD8DZwIGCgEBAwmQdgEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,370,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="29105298" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Aug 2020 07:24:59 +0000 Received: from [10.61.230.208] ([10.61.230.208]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07U7OxZC027511 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Aug 2020 07:24:59 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 09:24:58 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <43E5A444-51EA-4F41-B2AF-E0718F64BDD3@cisco.com> References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> <85ea85ea-331e-031c-9cc4-db9164d280d3@gmail.com> To: Eric Rescorla X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.230.208, [10.61.230.208] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 07:25:05 -0000 Eric, Unless you and others are attempt to support an argument that = effectively ends the the RFC publication process as we know it, that = tooling will need to evolve, taking into account input format, output = format, and other factors that neither of us have thought about, and the = discussion is at the wrong level. Eliot= From nobody Sun Aug 30 04:42:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58243A12D0 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:42:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eE9JbAcpHE6d for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF6883A083C for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id i10so3618489ljn.2 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:42:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=euhPVPzh0nkEaPpq3964jaqj9mDNx0RWk7mmW18YAEQ=; b=dWPEybvw99iQNrjWWlegj/NuMKeK3CdEGe/zbPFuLAoV6o9n5sBRfpbB3XdOPS1j7l neWh3S93szIu64SMZu0BTHyjNeBYJJQ0hzpxYLEiiezcdXs0h5IIYdZclvPrEgNpakZ2 mYo5Kj53Yh/ZYNT0yyexvM7pKtK08I1IsS2+48rLf26Dhx8pb2xcYv2tfJQ9LDF6df/u jglAynoII7J1bSefZiUNYd3eXjbDluoV2NGzleolmPCV516ny6USvw+80Ll0gGDE2M+8 gcZ0J/ng7mhOML2RspbGImbCNrQz5MfqcEsRh3G59rWIKlYIhL1RGEpIAYmERRVmqsro 1Pdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=euhPVPzh0nkEaPpq3964jaqj9mDNx0RWk7mmW18YAEQ=; b=Wpdi/Edg62FqU0VylZ3UhPYL9EXLm8cqasE12oAbmY+k8u5tIGWWZn035gb+EQFeeW GqfFK7RcZEtyDsCh8c0Tthjyx49Mt9TwbR/1jFKajUTVyhyRcd1907eA0SZU9VUFQNwB 3rPqAouj4XdMPQsMDjqme9BxWjJIuxqWaZ5rGm8pkyrRGJy1//xJgjhA3Xh16f5iu7xW KIarFK+X5aI1LPN53ZzFCRLtt7BHFhUYk8RgmGqObtvclWymQTnoatEGJHv2Tjqr4ju2 Z++PGyjUBwhm2rrpj6zEKHk/cIhmteZCYxOJMjulAfDT9l7z/fOoULq5rA6vTaL9g1Yh IRSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Rk92czhI4sTB2OQCTyk4q+mqy4Nj4jTbcJyQE1YtNWlQDBlJy MnzAXVXokDgbCmNo77vP/kb/xk7DeGEeg+RUBAuyow== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy1UxZcozqVeanM3Aop3M46dOYOrfq8uXoWglyRRm9j/FWQyPDTmfH5AqUo5FuUcQDAxIjnp/WtJeQFi3jDDdE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ace:: with SMTP id p14mr3268892ljj.199.1598787699947; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:41:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062e01d67de2$ce5b5020$6b11f060$@olddog.co.uk> <11BF1AA3-1DB3-4E56-A2B8-0BE248B2D4FB@tzi.org> <85ea85ea-331e-031c-9cc4-db9164d280d3@gmail.com> <43E5A444-51EA-4F41-B2AF-E0718F64BDD3@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <43E5A444-51EA-4F41-B2AF-E0718F64BDD3@cisco.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:41:04 -0700 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed4f5305ae16c438" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Document formats - not on this list? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:42:04 -0000 --000000000000ed4f5305ae16c438 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:25 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Eric, > > Unless you and others are attempt to support an argument that effectively > ends the the RFC publication process as we know it, that tooling will need > to evolve, taking into account input format, output format, and other > factors that neither of us have thought about, and the discussion is at the > wrong level. > I agree that it's desirable for our tooling and processes to evolve. What I am trying to do is understand the extent to which it is necessary to engage external expertise in order for it to do so. To that end, it's quite relevant to ask which of our peer organizations engaged such help in the design of their formats and processes. -Ekr --000000000000ed4f5305ae16c438 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:25 AM Elio= t Lear <lear@cisco.c= om> wrote:
In-Reply-To: <20200829203614.6DE971F44659@ary.qy> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:21:11 -0700 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-Id: References: <20200829203614.6DE971F44659@ary.qy> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] what does archival mean, was My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:21:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D4110B7D-5D21-4F07-A0A0-0ABDA8392654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The two points you also agree below (in bold) are the only ones I was = actually trying to raise. Joe > On Aug 29, 2020, at 1:36 PM, John Levine wrote: > ... > Again, if people want to use it for authoring I think investing in > better tools to create xml2rfc directly or indirectly from Word would > be fine, but authoring and publishing are different. >=20 > ... > The reason I'm going through all this is to point out that there is a > lot of expertise in publishing that more IETFers don't have, and we = should > remember that there are often times when asking actual experts (not = me) for > advice is a good idea. --Apple-Mail=_D4110B7D-5D21-4F07-A0A0-0ABDA8392654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii The = two points you also agree below (in bold) are the only ones I was = actually trying to raise.

Joe

On Aug 29, 2020, at 1:36 PM, John Levine = <johnl@taugh.com> = wrote:
...
Again, if = people want to use it for authoring I think investing in
better tools to create xml2rfc = directly or indirectly from Word would
be fine, but authoring and publishing are = different.

...
The reason I'm going through all = this is to point out that there is a
lot of expertise in publishing that more IETFers don't have, = and we should
remember that = there are often times when asking actual experts (not me) for
advice is a = good idea.

= --Apple-Mail=_D4110B7D-5D21-4F07-A0A0-0ABDA8392654-- From nobody Mon Aug 31 07:41:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A893A1492 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wU8lSfL3JcTV for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDC8C3A1488 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kCl09-000IxV-Ax; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:41:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:41:35 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: John Levine cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: <2C0BF7A3262FF268B414355B@PSB> In-Reply-To: <20200829203614.6DE971F44659@ary.qy> References: <20200829203614.6DE971F44659@ary.qy> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] what does archival mean, was My hard constraints X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:41:45 -0000 --On Saturday, August 29, 2020 16:36 -0400 John Levine wrote: > In article > <17FCFA34-BACE-4354-9C57-5257416BCAFF@strayalpha.com> you > write: >> I've been using Word since 1988. Files from that time still >> opened in Word through 2016; it's been simple to open those >> .doc in that version and save them in .docx - the ONE >> transition that's been required in the intervening 32 years. >> >> I can say that about NO other format except raw ASCII. > > We troff users would take issue with that. I'm pretty sure I > have troff source from the 1970s that I can still run through > groff. That is ok because, if one were prescient to choose the right markup to use and not be very clever, contemporary groff will process CTSS runoff files from the first half of the 1950s. See below for the point other than historical curiosity. > More to the point, though, the DOC files from the 1980s were > in a binary tokenized format while modern DOCX are zip > archives of several XML files. They only thing they have in > common is that Microsoft will sell you a program called Word > that can read them. While that is swell for Microsoft's > customers, it's not a great argument about stability. Indeed. > Again, if people want to use it for authoring I think > investing in better tools to create xml2rfc directly or > indirectly from Word would be fine, but authoring and > publishing are different. >> And to be clear - the only way IETF's XML will be >> renderable in 30 years is if someone from THIS community >> continues to support that. First of all, when professionals in the document preservation field talk about "archival" they are talking about many human lifetimes: centuries rather than a few decades. For media, stone and clay tablets protected against breakage, the right sort of paper and careful preservation conditions are good. Most other things (including most modern CDs, DVDs, etc., and anything magnetic) require some plan about periodic duplication, making sure that the duplication process does not lose information and that it comes with its own guarantees about long-term (again many centuries) repetition. I think Heather's arrangements with repository libraries that already have several centuries of history, practice, and tradition will serve us very well but being sure about electronic/digital media would require a time machine and ability to look ahead into the next millennium (at least. Depending on the IETF community to continue to support a format for 30, much less a few hundred, years, presumes that the IETF will be around, perhaps even more or less in its current form, for that period. The only think that would prevent me from taking bets is that I'm fairly sure I won't be around to collect. > Not at all -- when we're looking at archival formats, > robustness is part of the discussion. Our format is based on > XML, which is unlikely to be forgotten, and it's stored as > UTF-8 which is equally unlikely to be undisplayable. So even > if all of our tools disappear, you can just look at the XML > and see the text, and if you wanted, reverse engineering the > XML grammar to help render it better would not be hard. And this is where I think we have some disagreement. For the RFC Series, if page layout is considered significant (with the RFC Series it has been for most of the last 40 years but arguably was not for the first decade) being able to read the text and mentally discard the markup isn't good enough. If one doesn't care about formatting generally, things like tables can be a challenge to read and interpret but that now becomes much more challenging with non-ASCII drawings and figures because the issue is not just XML but, e.g., SVG. With the additional markup in v3, some of which is close to formatting, rather than generic, markup, decoding -- figuring out which markup and elements can be ignored and which ones have to be interpreted and interpreted accurately is much more challenging than "not very hard" would imply. As to the longevity or XML (or SVG), what was that quote attributed to Zhou Enlai about the French Revolution? :-( > While I don't think DOCX will disappear either, it doesn't > have the semantic tagging of our XML and I can tell you that > it is not easy to find the text when you unzip the archive and > look at the contents. Yes. And, if a slightly earlier format makes a good comparison to think about, I can supply some source documents in first-generation Word Perfect -- a format which, at the time, people felt would be around for a very long time because it was being used for so many documents -- for people to examine. > > The reason I'm going through all this is to point out that > there is a lot of expertise in publishing that more IETFers > don't have, and we should remember that there are often times > when asking actual experts (not me) for advice is a good idea. Exactly. john From nobody Mon Aug 31 10:35:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B7F3A17F1 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGTnHtUHi4NQ for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72F33A17DF for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:34:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1598895296; x=1600104896; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:references:to:date; bh=3MKVVYMHCzPGnsRKIAcLQ5a53bJUbxKveD7d1HQfsK8=; b=mYq48OBRkWQVPDPnbfwkMZgyYVuvPVEnsgPz0R6rN4GXgrWgSMSHMJJI oDNZUrki5hg1zfDBKZnIWcEJS4bq+xA+Pt2+d5dupqniFNZnyzyqTncbb jnqpTx25wMRwUrAgXEEzg7h03RkESiuCQI+td5ZrW0dfr3aDNhMXkXvIw 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CgAQBcNE1f/xbLJq1gGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQEBARIBAQEDAwEBAYIKgxpUASASLIQ4iQGIFyWUA4gZCwEBAQwBARgBCgw?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGETAKCSyU4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBBAEBASFLEAsPDQM?= =?us-ascii?q?BAisCAicmAggZgyYBglwgD68QdoEyhDsBgReFDwaBOI1AggCBOAwQgh8uPoJ?= =?us-ascii?q?cAQOBfS2CSjOCLQS2aoJvgw2FW5FKAx6DCYlvhQuOU50fkTGDWAIEBgUCFYF?= =?us-ascii?q?rI4FXMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ1XkTmFFIVEPwMwAjUCBgEJAQEDCZEiAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.76,376,1592870400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="29198355" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 31 Aug 2020 17:34:51 +0000 Received: from [10.61.196.189] ([10.61.196.189]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07VHYoqv017010 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:34:50 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B730EA74-541D-4A4B-AF08-AA45D6564438" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Message-Id: <50D6C199-A57F-4868-940E-EE90E4CD4050@cisco.com> References: <1F24DC7E-AC39-4DE8-AB99-E248C8240620@cisco.com> To: rfced-future@iab.org Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:34:50 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.196.189, [10.61.196.189] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Fwd: Interim doodle to discuss drafts X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:35:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B730EA74-541D-4A4B-AF08-AA45D6564438 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Reminder: Please doodle if you have not already done so. Eliot > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: Eliot Lear > Subject: [Rfced-future] Interim doodle to discuss drafts > Date: 28 August 2020 at 20:25:48 CEST > To: rfced-future@iab.org >=20 > Hi everyone, >=20 > I=E2=80=99ve created a doodle for the week of the 14th of September so = that we can meet to discuss the various drafts. As is always the case, = we are a geographically disparate crowd. Thank you for your = understanding in that regard. >=20 > Doodle deadline: Tuesday, 1 September 5:00pm GMT. >=20 > https://doodle.com/poll/c27sinppf3mur44h >=20 > Eliot > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_B730EA74-541D-4A4B-AF08-AA45D6564438 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Reminder:

Please doodle if you have not already done so.

Eliot

Begin forwarded message:

From: = Eliot Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: = [Rfced-future] = Interim doodle to discuss drafts
Date: = 28 August 2020 at 20:25:48 = CEST
To: = rfced-future@iab.org

Hi everyone,

I=E2=80=99ve created a doodle for the week of the 14th of = September so that we can meet to discuss the various drafts.  As is = always the case, we are a geographically disparate  crowd. =  Thank you for your understanding in that regard.

Doodle deadline: Tuesday, 1 September 5:00pm GMT.

https://doodle.com/poll/c27sinppf3mur44h

Eliot
--
Rfced-future mailing = list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

= --Apple-Mail=_B730EA74-541D-4A4B-AF08-AA45D6564438--