From nobody Thu Apr 1 00:14:51 2021 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 2339E3A0B02 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 00:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 L87wP_sUQ4GD for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 00:14:41 -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 069083A0A1C for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 00:14:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2101; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617261281; x=1618470881; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=AGjENZfNkpfE65Z17yO4VNp/GhWyJ5fYbXnOieYX08Y=; b=UK9Ztwm907bVeJI93sRCBrFHbsELMxDRdthbBU0yvlONmNYgIj4QB+4A XTtCFDoTtf3YbbL08v/SWCMicfkiHy1YB1FHp3faSMw4pU7x5VmIfFx24 uay0KXIRIMub+bMlIdZmWnWBn3fSOX2iesPBHvHvAWEgd9orwq53JnkTI I=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AcAACocWVglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBf?= =?us-ascii?q?gUBAQsBg3cBJxIxhEKJBIhOA5pkgXwEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBhFACgXwmNgcOA?= =?us-ascii?q?gMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhkOGRAEBAQMBHQZWBQsLD?= =?us-ascii?q?goqAgJXBhOCcQGCZiGqJXeBMoVYhHYQgTkBgVKLd0KCC4E5DBCCWT6BBIZSN?= =?us-ascii?q?YIrBINVHDACgSoRFoEBnT6LHpFhgxKDOoFFl24DH4NIinCFZZA/hmOtPQGDf?= =?us-ascii?q?wIEBgUCFoFbBiuBWzMaCBsVZQGCPj4SGQ2ONgIejhQ/Ay84AgYBCQEBAwmOc?= =?us-ascii?q?QEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:sexiGauMP0PH3nXT/MDFYaMP7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,296,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="34671457" 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; 01 Apr 2021 07:14:36 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.104] ([10.61.144.104]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1317EZc3032280 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:14:36 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <2C1187BD-63E0-4424-8892-A47A868A7A0E@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8DEA3AD6-ED3E-4861-B96D-8AE2A43857AF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:14:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <31A9EA92-2EE3-45BB-9196-F339F41DAC67@mnot.net> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Mark Nottingham References: <31A9EA92-2EE3-45BB-9196-F339F41DAC67@mnot.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.104, [10.61.144.104] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus Call for Chairs Proposal: Please comment by April 13th 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, 01 Apr 2021 07:14:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8DEA3AD6-ED3E-4861-B96D-8AE2A43857AF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 1 Apr 2021, at 00:23, Mark Nottingham wrote: >=20 > Hi Eliot, >=20 > I'm fine with this text, provided that we can file issues against this = text and expect to have them seriously considered by the group. In other = words, I'm interpreting your question here as what we'd consider a Call = for Adoption in the WGs I participate in regularly -- this text is a = good starting point, but isn't sacrosanct, and doesn't have any higher = bar for changes than usual. Correct. >=20 > If your intent differs from that (e.g., we need some sort of consensus = to even consider an issue), please say so. >=20 It does not. As new proposals come through, from you or from others, as a co-chair, I = expect everyone to show give and take. Also, I don=E2=80=99t think any = of us want the process to drag out indefinitely. What I=E2=80=99m = hoping is that PRs can get generated within a month or so of the = adoption of this work. Then we=E2=80=99ll see where we are in terms of = timing. That means people should be thinking now in terms of what PRs they would = like to create. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_8DEA3AD6-ED3E-4861-B96D-8AE2A43857AF 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmBlctoACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNyMAf/TMGJj+qUVg/T5QwW8VoupwO8hGAzMGcSIKQbDVtae7EKq14rQzsH5Osw zmN1XBVZYLijhxgObf4nNjtNPKPbtr6iQUC2oaIYsv7Xb6miuo5oyEnpkABMKp8r 4XnvG4hmXsm+KyWEhxMZRMs/GTE1ZXPpkFq2epCSTv6wVVdX6YDkx94XQNiDWs/+ JrPjv0OTMORwCeHFQ49Pol5+lsq2FGl34nWuU0d9NHWatdqXku/+xPHVGLlmmpAE Bsd0MPKJotTD9IILGNaNMGVC+0xlpKdqHJvvu/ZQaqPojs9Hj1PgcBHU3fceZI0l IF4of7BTA5BVELziuvGfa7htUGihwg== =S8Zh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8DEA3AD6-ED3E-4861-B96D-8AE2A43857AF-- From nobody Thu Apr 1 13:30:49 2021 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 6A05E3A2255 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=DRgu9Jby; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=BZx/ZfZh 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 SVSVJjdUb6Cr for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5913A2251 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A5B5C0091 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 01 Apr 2021 16:30:41 -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=fm1; bh=SYpbk uYIxmAb7vugCV2tP0TkDKCZ84Yn+TlUhOm2lCs=; b=DRgu9JbyfUWTauH6P1ZjD 2vVwicDuh9LkcdBpuS88BveVjnKjXvKkSwF6A+QyTt0N4CR+UGElE6/XF6wfopV8 /msAB0xwwpIVnbxPE7rIO3W1qIkXn2PtspWZDObC58Rv8iX0ccvw8ttAGPMwH0Y7 diERFhfWylb5YYRrXX+YE/Rz0MTxRKoptmwgjV8M4I2+WgjdsySyowzEnoBhIIbX 7f7RQnOtjSI0QpNrbs8WYa8046JZi4xXpDLoH/hINndsAoP8oQzLo419lxdrpTBz fWf2qTgDMEIPal/VV3hIgXw5HsrkRr053H0zgpa7R5bP7s8U5SBLceIjYV3ZeIQP A== 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=fm2; bh=SYpbkuYIxmAb7vugCV2tP0TkDKCZ84Yn+TlUhOm2l Cs=; b=BZx/ZfZhDL4fbRS9C2/1Vlf3L4ha2Uy9x5bQQaXsDPjYoypTUazmE3ge9 v2uZNXBpLmPOzETQ83ZEdXVM+8lbUBRuO4J69tz5w1htxN0iPQx6g6SijQkOSsyD c9Bd9ldWPWiJ2aMleH6NUakctQSu1SonesGYvjjBDU+Jd61E2YqmlB7C4p47UG94 O3lihAbgZAk076xiRbjN9l8Q8NvmZZAfPj2WFse1WNbghCV55/WFU8plmANJ+HQP T4P7IzptlkHMgFNvzDQkQcNeyKyaOMPmSZvYbdwNDD2B7mXXadQtsVo5FfF36xzx yOXTDNE+Hfwr5M3u+tZxCMQv077bQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeigedgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgse htqhertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmthes lhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhgeejveelfeeige efhfelheetleduueffiefgkeeuveeuffffleelgfdujeeuheenucffohhmrghinhepghhi thhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdegtdhirggsrdhorhhgpdhirggsrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhp hidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 36F754E02B8; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:30:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-273-g8500d2492d-fm-20210323.002-g8500d249 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <623e1183-30f3-496d-b2af-f80a7067a6ad@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 07:30:21 +1100 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] =?utf-8?q?Consensus_Call_for_Chairs_Proposal=3A_P?= =?utf-8?q?lease_comment_by_April_13th?= 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, 01 Apr 2021 20:30:48 -0000 As a starting point, this is good. Let's get this somewhere we can coll= aborate on it properly. On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, at 04:51, Eliot Lear wrote: > The chairs appreciate comments received, and we now believe that it is= =20 > ok to start a consensus call on the chairs=E2=80=99 proposal on both = the draft=20 > evolution process and the RSE hire and accountability text, taken as a= =20 > whole. If you have already indicated your support for the proposal,=20= > the chairs will note this. *We would like to hear from all interested= =20 > participants*. If you would like to indicate either support or=20 > objection, please feel free to do so by Tuesday, April 13th. >=20 > If there is rough consensus, this text will be included in the editor=E2= =80=99s=20 > draft. It can be further amended with rough consensus, and the chairs= =20 > expect there to be some of that. Again, we see this as compromise=20 > text, and so we are hoping that this is a good enough starting point=20= > for further modifications. >=20 > As a reminder, we have an interim meeting scheduled for next Tuesday,=20= > April 6th, 2021, at 20:00 GMT, when of course this proposal will be on= =20 > the agenda for people to discuss. More about that agenda in the next=20= > day or two. >=20 > The text can be found on GitHub in two parts at the following URLs: >=20 > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/draft= -evolution-process.md > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/rse-h= ire-and-accountability.md >=20 > And it is below for your consideration as well. >=20 > Brian and Eliot >=20 >=20 > DRAFT RFC Evolution Process >=20 > =20 > >=20 > Scope >=20 > This procedure is applicable to the evolution processes relating to th= e=20 > management and evolution of the RFC series, including format, tooling,= =20 > publication, dissemination, and overall management of the series. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > Structure >=20 > The RFC evolution process is governed as follows: >=20 > * The RFC Working Group, whose job it is to develop proposed changes,= =20 > and establish community consensus of those changes. > * The The RFC Approval Board, whose job it is to provide final review= =20 > of proposals. > Each group is described below. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > The RFC Working Group (RFCWG) >=20 > All RFCWG meetings are open to any participant, subject to intellectua= l=20 > property policies which must be consistent to those of the IETF [Note=20= > Well]. At body's initial formation, all discussions are to take place=20= > on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. The= =20 > RFCWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of=20 > communication (for example, Github as specified in [RFC8874]) that are= =20 > consistent with [RFC2418]. The group will conform itself to an=20 > anti-harassment policy consistent with [RFC7154,RFC7776]. >=20 > IETF chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoint=20= > and oversee a co-chair of the RFCWG. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > The RFC Approval Board (RFCAB) >=20 > The RFC Approval Board consists of representatives from each RFC strea= m=20 > (at the time of this writing, the IAB, the IETF, the IRTF, and the=20 > Indepenent Series), as well as the RS[EA]. The sole function of this=20= > group is to review draft proposals approvedby the RFCWG. The RFCAB may= =20 > choose its chair as it sees fit. The group is primarily expected to=20= > operate via email and through any necessary tooling. A record of all=20= > proceedings (no matter the form) will be kept. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > Update Process >=20 > The following procedure is used to update the RFC process: >=20 > 1. Someone writes a draft proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft. >=20 > 2. If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RFCWG will adopt=20= > the proposal as a working draft, much the same way a working group of=20= > the IETF would. >=20 > 3. The RFCWG will then further develop the proposal. All members of=20= > the RFCAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to all=20= > proposals. >=20 > 4. At some point, if the chairs believe there may be rough consensus=20= > exists for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working group=20= > last call. >=20 > 5. After a suitable period of time, the chairs will determine whether= =20 > rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comments have been=20 > received and substantial changes have been made, it is expected that=20= > additional last calls may be made. >=20 > 6. Once working group consensus is established, a community call for=20= > comments will be issued. Should substantial comments be received, the=20= > working group will again consider those comments and make revisions as= =20 > they see fit. At this same time, the RFCAB will consider the proposal.= >=20 > 7. Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls for= =20 > comment should be issued, and again comments considered. >=20 > 8. Once all comments have been been addressed, the working group=20 > chairs will transmit the latest proposal to the RFCAB. >=20 > 9. Within a reasonable period of time, the RFCAB will then poll on th= e=20 > proposal. Positions may be as follows: >=20 > * "YES": the proposal should be approved > * "CONCERN" : the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be= =20 > addressed. > * "RECUSE" : the person holding the position has a conflict of=20 > interest. > Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position MUST explain their concern to the=20= > community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable. >=20 > A CONCERN may be made for two reasons: >=20 > * The proposal represents a serious problem for the group a=20 > particular member represents. > * The member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm to= =20 > the overall series, including harm to the long term health and=20 > viability of the series. > No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RFCWG. >=20 > 10. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RFCWG.= =20 > Again, all RFCAB members MUST participate. >=20 > 11. If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is=20 > approved. Again, if substantial changes have been made, an additional=20= > call for community input should be made. >=20 > 12. If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain= ,=20 > a formal vote of the RFCAB is taken. If a majority of RFCAB members=20= > vote to approve, the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is returned t= o=20 > the RFCWG. In the case of a tie, the proposal is approved. >=20 > 13. When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the=20 > community, and it is published as an RFC. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > The roles of the LLC Board and ED >=20 > LLC Board members, staff, and the Executive Director, are invited to=20= > participate as community members in the RFCWG to the extent permitted=20= > by any relevant LLC policies. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > Appeals >=20 > Appeals of RFCAB decisions may only be made based on process failures,= =20 > and not on the substance of a proposal. These appeals SHALL be made to= =20 > the ISOC BoT within thirty days of the RFCAB decision. The ISOC BoT MA= Y=20 > decide only whether a process failure occurred, and what if any=20 > corrective action should take place. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > Discussion >=20 > The intent of this policy is to provide an open forum by which policie= s=20 > and procedures of the RFC series are evolved. The general expectation=20= > is that all interested parties will participate in the RFCWG, and that= =20 > only under extreme circumstances should the RFCAB members have to hold= =20 > "CONCERN" positions. To avoid that situation, WG members are encourage= d=20 > to take RFCAB concerns seriously, and RFCAB members are encouraged to=20= > make those concerns known early, and to be responsive to the community= .=20 > In particular, people are encouraged to respect the value of each=20 > stream, and the long term health and viability of the RFC series. >=20 > This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. In=20 > particular, RFCAB members should be consulting with their constuent=20= > groups on an ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a=20= > proposal, there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected= =20 > to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate=20= > this goal. >=20 > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT >=20 > =20 > >=20 > RS[EA] Selection >=20 > The RS[EA] will be searched for and vetted by a committee formed by th= e=20 > ED, taking into account the role definition=20 > and any detailed job description that we further develo= p. The search committee may ask others to take part in the selection pro= cess in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for one year,= but then further extensions will be for three to five years. >=20 > =20 > >=20 > RS[EA] Ongoing Performance Evaluation >=20 > Periodically, the ED will send out to the community a call for input o= n=20 > the performance of the RS[EA]. The evaluation will be based on criteri= a=20 > specified in the role definition. Was the RS[EA] an active participant= =20 > in all/most meetings? Did the RS[EA] provide useful advice to the RPC=20= > and to the WG? Did the RS[EA] exercise good judgment in terms of any=20= > role he or she would have had on the Approval Body? Was the RS[EA]=20 > effective in advising the community on appropriate actions to take or=20= > not take? >=20 > The ED will then review the feedback, consulting with stream manager=20= > representatives, and then produce a recommendation to the LLC Board.=20= > The LLC will then make a decision, taking into account that=20 > recommendation. >=20 > Whether the RS[EA] role is structured as a contractual or employee=20 > relationship is left to the LLC and ED to determine. >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 > Attachments: > * signature.asc From nobody Fri Apr 2 16:31:53 2021 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 25C3E3A0D6D for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:31:51 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 ItXrgWeycMA9 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:31:46 -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 7225C3A0D6B for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee71fe600090c17c874d9d0fa.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e71f:e600:90c:17c8:74d9:d0fa] helo=[192.168.178.42]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lSTGO-0000Ex-1s; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 01:31:40 +0200 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.45.21011103 Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2021 01:30:06 +0200 From: Mirja Kuehlewind To: Message-ID: <3BF78F1F-31FC-4875-B24C-2CE37D1A4276@ericsson.com> Thread-Topic: Contract with Temporary RFC Series Project Manager has been extended to March 2022 References: <9AFAA144-7324-48FD-AE71-0FFC6F681D4F@iab.org> In-Reply-To: <9AFAA144-7324-48FD-AE71-0FFC6F681D4F@iab.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1617406306;e8f13879; X-HE-SMSGID: 1lSTGO-0000Ex-1s Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] FW: Contract with Temporary RFC Series Project Manager has been extended to March 2022 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, 02 Apr 2021 23:31:51 -0000 FYI in case you didn't see it on the ietf-announce list. =EF=BB=BFOn 02.04.21, 21:34, "IETF-Announce on behalf of IAB Chair" wrote: The IAB has, based on the recommendation of RSOC, requested the Executi= ve Director to extend the contract with the Temporary RFC Series Project Man= ager John Levine. The contract and SoW have been extended to March 2022 on t= he same terms and conditions. The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is re= sponsible for a subset of the tasks that are normally performed by the RFC S= eries Editor (RSE) while the RFC Editor Future Development Program is workin= g on evolution of the RFC Editor model. Thanks to John for supporting the community in this role! Kind regards, Mirja K=C3=BChlewind IAB Chair on behalf of the IAB _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From nobody Fri Apr 2 17:30:35 2021 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 7F6623A1125 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:30:34 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 JpBlYGI3bceq for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com (mail-io1-xd44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) (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 1EE9D3A1121 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id f19so6782148ion.3 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:30:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z0I2qiPznHDyrpVhypcXDE5nMFxmPU3cSUZVNsxDZD4=; b=ADseObxSaxxz5B/m+f03WFhguXd/acTctQbo1g2sVx4+j5MD0shLR84RqwUz1TnD8P n0yjoxh8Jm4HY0vJ3WJz1YLW0siKFcQu1h3Uno9YxRYkpZRj0lSHWSwT0dJ5Fv9iTGOX sYcQkXgPTmAoFexGZ62XqLrLQCjU0at5oA/f0= 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=z0I2qiPznHDyrpVhypcXDE5nMFxmPU3cSUZVNsxDZD4=; b=Q6tB+lfMjFWN+bBka6FiVIx6Dpnb+q2SwqQLj1slsvh+UJbIpgmHg9uCykDZ33806G W+KhJLppiWw3S097wFKjTGb06UbuJhLKobDHdp/6Ilog3pu/cXXZVgcQ8+RIkfyh3eJy N1G9iqWWNJS3l2UhgVoSgDOz9QTyl7+9zVhxgDZfqfNPBlBbQyNuuqadvYrMEbFEVh7l d1bGsgmFTE1ty9QMDQFSgRZpyoUV/FZSMJZu2HSZCfK/oMiph2pBiyjqhHpp0ImDki1K 8hMrXtmhV9jtFCI2/Dc3s/TVNFclBGobyT+g2oXf7iWgB8vheHeaycbtHn32Zo5G4eT5 rWSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532bHwML9Xi/r4daTNCQUxC2hMi4PV6LFiZJTtqtUwU7cTMff0xg AfXEjZdEz7mVJ99hNrMLn1TflQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQg44MtnFDNwsuOBBeBDyMzXssfY/TMxU/ZVKRHMRiRi12s1q6D/FVJ4Atjdc1ygaEU/T/RQ== X-Received: by 2002:a02:694b:: with SMTP id e72mr15179906jac.89.1617409830478; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-76-25-112-195.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [76.25.112.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w11sm4891204ill.36.2021.04.02.17.30.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:30:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <623e1183-30f3-496d-b2af-f80a7067a6ad@www.fastmail.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 18:30:29 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <623e1183-30f3-496d-b2af-f80a7067a6ad@www.fastmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus Call for Chairs Proposal: Please comment by April 13th 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, 03 Apr 2021 00:30:34 -0000 On 4/1/21 2:30 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > As a starting point, this is good. Let's get this somewhere we can collaborate on it properly. It's here: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/draft-evolution-process.md I'm working on a first draft of an I-D we can work from, as well, and will have that ready by Monday so that we can discuss on Tuesday. Peter From nobody Sat Apr 3 01:52:22 2021 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 39C6A3A143B for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 01:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 DhMQ94cZ4AWe for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 01:52:15 -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 1ED553A1437 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 01:52:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1735; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617439935; x=1618649535; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=lZ6RXYqbSLATbsi0iZUsxD0h8KZrbpOh4+hCGzcAYok=; b=GEukV1MgQdXHgpuoz1gSr9+TB1RTLsiCmpPYI84fS6Qur0hJzzyL/eMc fjrF4wE4ldlSIc5Kqu1fMEokJuFipIX60n2/CSEEpN2Wa9kH2fwkxRFSI QqkGAYZTeJanA5aE20foXx5HZqu3LkErr8kZhSEHVEqrkcnD8Rnf26jAR k=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BaAADMK2hg/xbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCA?= =?us-ascii?q?AUBAQsBgyFWAScSMYRCiQSISwOaZYF8BAcBAQEKAwEBHQ0KBAEBhFACgX0mN?= =?us-ascii?q?gcOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEcROFUA2GRAEBAQMBAQEbBksLBQsLG?= =?us-ascii?q?CoCAicwBhOCcQGCZiEPqlF3gTKBAYRYhHkKBoE5AYFSi3lDgguBOhyCXz6BB?= =?us-ascii?q?IFcAQGEdTWCKwSCRmhDEFtxBBOBEZ1FnQKDFIM6gUWEYJMXAx+DTIp4hWaQR?= =?us-ascii?q?IZjmhqTOwGEAQIEBgUCFoFbCSqBWTMaCBsVOyoBgj4+EhkOjjYggzmFFIVHP?= =?us-ascii?q?wMvOAIGAQkBAQMJjnsBAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:oFpMoKzI7IKDC/OOe2pSKrPwrr1zdoIgy1knxilNYDZeG/bo9P yGtvIdyBPylXItSGgt8OrtBICsSW7RnKQV3aA/JrGnNTONhEKJK8VY4ZLm03ncHUTFltJ18a t7aaBxBJnRADFB4PrSxAm9H5IezMKc8Kau7N2w815XQQtna75t4m5CY27xLmRMSAZLHpY/Hp aHj/A3wgaIQ2gdbciwGxA+MdTrmtujruOFXTc2Qzou6AyDllqTmdrHOind+AsCWDVSxrpn1m 7Jn2XCl8OemsD+7APA3GnO6JkTov/d859oAcyBjdV9EESKtjqV X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,302,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="32296839" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Apr 2021 08:52:12 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.99] ([10.61.144.99]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1338qC1i014231 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:52:12 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <725B0BB3-5DE0-40F3-B33B-40E85D25AF03@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4FA9449-7756-417F-8F5F-B0853A01856F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 10:52:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <623e1183-30f3-496d-b2af-f80a7067a6ad@www.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.99, [10.61.144.99] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus Call for Chairs Proposal: Please comment by April 13th 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, 03 Apr 2021 08:52:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C4FA9449-7756-417F-8F5F-B0853A01856F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 And while it=E2=80=99s okay to generate a PR to that text in GitHub, all = discussion about the change should occur here, please. > On 3 Apr 2021, at 02:30, Peter Saint-Andre = wrote: >=20 > On 4/1/21 2:30 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> As a starting point, this is good. Let's get this somewhere we can = collaborate on it properly. >=20 > It's here: >=20 > = https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/draft-evo= lution-process.md >=20 > I'm working on a first draft of an I-D we can work from, as well, and > will have that ready by Monday so that we can discuss on Tuesday. >=20 > Peter >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_C4FA9449-7756-417F-8F5F-B0853A01856F 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmBoLLsACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOHHgf9F3VSBk4vnmeeKvbB0WVuJapXoeQ4OgqPtjEyPuQ7i5rs09aYDqIveXJl vsuvnpualH32bIBVqmN9XbTG9Eb5TU4RerfmV/8xb3eC7N+CUSsqNZlQGrd6rV/s Me8c/m9rIc5/soxuvEmT7YsbiGpwiHE7fKpwVHQJCJAyXhgLAWHIiT2iaG0K9vjt T/3N/fRojtUjJ2WFc+RahkxLnPBfmJY0gNyv1AdGn/aMSgbVp/aJ5Kq0ZhVvl7Zf y39ktu6eHIyyQyImLlgFuoWbGV5s9DP3kB3ZkpmN1bY7hJ5aeruthwCC76R73dAy mRKtXVhmyR/ELRHLcMG73B3P2BmBWQ== =ZIRG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C4FA9449-7756-417F-8F5F-B0853A01856F-- From nobody Mon Apr 5 12:19:28 2021 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 8E2F63A2444 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:19:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_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=mozilla.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 8NS7Kfi4vHJc for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:19:22 -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 C48553A2442 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id k25so6092995iob.6 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:19:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hHAFYAf9/sbTQ3MvCYPC52UvgMdXN41Xri51X7Z9hXc=; b=UbdTPfOlUsnimghsyMpSpTs6kdQnyhtzK3GD4FQmo9W5r8GFBsJzIsTE2dOlsgNYg1 7tltSz3S8Hy+Y2L2fHeNwDUk4NMy715y/wEuGJ3EVFQDxN8Q5u3aSvIpEkSTQ/IYzdxB gIOP2Mg98K5A9H12mBZITo7euoOcREPEOo6k8= 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-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hHAFYAf9/sbTQ3MvCYPC52UvgMdXN41Xri51X7Z9hXc=; b=G/yXLVd48lc/v+3z7x3WSssOhnB1Tns6GvFZjsm6ZvRu2JVeR8K+o7RZXZnYJI4G5F qzKn4SeymIsydmo8CUNLjbkynNRqVaJJVXbiI7i5GkdPuux8o2PwGhlqCLWDbDhKJXwI F/HEQMbTkzYz/v1QS/4eko++zk5hrsMmqi/FzCFqIkjYv8kuHoa1alr56O0+GZT+INdG X3uZbEyvAjFra0NJjG3lvbKi1qqk4kd3V3lYMSEcrHpEt3pTaTuxjU+OBOEHRs5+nync md55H6A+5dkfcX0oiEnEHe2OD6hZJHcvK3/+J+iMoSv6xUKiOF89KDIOdnoPZylMzRN4 FxqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318SBbpsSPXfoK0W6Vha97ORNpNO6k8h74rLFb3KGESzADmbzUt VxyNdtIlIQ9ozOmsZ7QexoA8+Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/01SsEGpAaHM7DToX0kaySNLMPnkc8XpS5C4Lss9qmSBVwBdmOkMsaOLR0fCbY2izkkf11g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:371e:: with SMTP id k30mr25077689jav.4.1617650360314; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-76-25-112-195.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [76.25.112.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm11694832ilb.18.2021.04.05.12.19.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:19:19 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:19:18 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 05 Apr 2021 19:19:28 -0000 Hi all, In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals as well as from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This I-D is very much a work in progress and there are doubtless errors of omission and commission. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ Peter From nobody Mon Apr 5 12:52:09 2021 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 362233A250D for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.821 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 4kj438H2L4t2 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52:02 -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 B689A3A15F6 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDhBV2MbNz1nsWm; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1617652322; bh=S+GHeT7nqzQL/TpLfzhXD76eNuYZ8kNF8YWruvoBA8M=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GplINpjt0Hq8k13J809Ouw0s4GZNHFWqQseMJYI7XgJ66fQgz9hmO2SPtLS2AU1x5 WeZylkS/LvyW0peJZbyWSz6xEKESffgUudN/9qhjeBirE4d+f1vZ154YuSE0PSqJ8F Jk4HgQp/SkHefxsvLRMypUPCP6dUtfb38rxjIBDQ= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FDhBT4kfKz1nsP7; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:51:59 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 05 Apr 2021 19:52:07 -0000 It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting points you threw in to help. As far as I can tell, the following: The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies regarding the RFC series. This document specifies such a structure through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list. It has multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the authority to change this structure. I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this adopted?" which is indeed important. I realize that everything is open for discussion. I do note and appreciate that some things are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to have less agreement. Yours, Joel On 4/5/2021 3:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Hi all, > > In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D > that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals as well as > from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This I-D is very much a work in > progress and there are doubtless errors of omission and commission. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ > > Peter > From nobody Tue Apr 6 08:21:21 2021 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 65E4C3A254A for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 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_NONE=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 KbQYKs61XMtQ for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:21:15 -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 826193A2549 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:21:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1123; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617722474; x=1618932074; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=+Q6ydhBUE8K3saHoBNzLwmafMHgakM0xxsKr+pyBzUQ=; b=KzgjxheFymUNokJFVDS6un3GljjYyW3G6xzk3UBTbw02nshSoPjo+BJA Vp2/cqWdH04GGOdl9PVZjSEl82csXDRoM/Xw+dnCRl2b0c8srH9VkSMpb peSt0LBDx0u7y024ZY1BEbNHc0NtbCdDIAdcRGgsw6tZt9vbzvvm6xPH5 4=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B4AADCe2xg/xbLJq1aHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBggAGAQsBg?= =?us-ascii?q?3cBJxKEc4kEozqBfAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGGSSY2Bw4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBB?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQIBBgRxE4Vdhm6BMwKDYwGDB50WjhZ3gTKBAYlNEIE5AYFSjD2CC4E6D?= =?us-ascii?q?BCIKoJKNYIrBIN9k36MQ50CgxWDPoFFl3kEH4M7AZBvkEa0PAGEAQIEBgUCF?= =?us-ascii?q?oFbAzCBWTMaCBsVZQGCPz0SGQ5XnBM/A2cCBgEJAQEDCY1EAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:mWvjpateslZgveouw/ZOIO+N7skDn9V00zAX/kB9WHVpW+afkN 2jm+le6A/shF8qNU0ItNicNMC7IE/02oVy5eAqV4uKeAX9omOnIMVD4OLZrQHIPy37+qpj2b x7c654YeedMXFAgcz34Ba1Hr8bqbHtzImTmezcw31xJDsEV4hc6W5CajqzIwlTTAlCCYFRLu v+2uN34xy9ZH8QcsO3Ql4CUuSrnayvqLvWJTgbGhUg9A6CyQmN1Ye/OR2Z0hACOgk/o4sfzQ == X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,309,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="32366612" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Apr 2021 15:21:12 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.88] ([10.61.144.88]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 136FLBo8024951 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:21:12 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61EBBF81-9F23-4AB5-B2A5-C1A7DBA4ABEA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Message-Id: <8D2218F5-5900-470D-B815-A510C9E68CFC@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:21:10 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.88, [10.61.144.88] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Today's agenda 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, 06 Apr 2021 15:21:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_61EBBF81-9F23-4AB5-B2A5-C1A7DBA4ABEA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi everyone, A reminder, we have an interim in a few hours. The agenda is as = follows: Note Well Agenda Bashing Discussion of Chairs=E2=80=99 Proposal --Apple-Mail=_61EBBF81-9F23-4AB5-B2A5-C1A7DBA4ABEA 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmBsfGYACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejN5xwgAvayq6YSQ2+b+NfzhxkjWWAsAb15sALyBpLfmE0IAOlvMo7daIFrIHgcM 0gjeAediBIYxDt7gytMKd8x9mq03+6L5oWK5YdxcPlxp8cECXS5apQt0AY/5FcH5 gAYBrp7SCBIhTAmnplbZEDufgTsZJ3QtEEu3cKVkokjdppPpOQzKlAQamAmgm955 cj3G9c35RVf6oDEqJWzpHcoxQuQdfT1H3OGuK24f76ZktmReOlCFLpAp+xIo8xyo U5ekA/BLFyJeGyqsndYHOWr9flioVBpvpZxXZ+xvYdikQKHC3zHrKp1b/wiM1T7v NR0fknXA46M/W3WAHD6ptffHhT9+Tw== =R4aZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_61EBBF81-9F23-4AB5-B2A5-C1A7DBA4ABEA-- From nobody Tue Apr 6 08:24:46 2021 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 7A0603A2562 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:24:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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_NONE=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 jBA5btqfxHMc for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:24:40 -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 55CBB3A2561 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2864; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617722680; x=1618932280; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=KNtNXLLYw6TCQMeKgJCY0bBQe33D1lZd9ZRlu5M4XyQ=; b=LaEMTg0M5MgVRocSkce3aEoqoP3YTtIuvsKpsIByvBcRtNy7P8I4dLN4 XflnRTPTZ6p2fsqZE1IViMe3zUxyjiuXhu/qT5oBiIDVSPiet0vSe3BUP h8W6pjO7swPPELPGiMVbMQWA+E4IU7CjrxmN83hHGSKRrSvNis3ZsNjtk Y=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AMAADVfGxglxbLJq0+HBwBAQEBAQEHAQESAQEEBAEBg?= =?us-ascii?q?X4HAQELAYMhVgEnEjGEQogkYJ0VhiSBfAQHAQEBCgMBASoKBAEBhkkmNAkOA?= =?us-ascii?q?gMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVQDYZudQE9AoNjAYMHD?= =?us-ascii?q?0CcRY4Wd4EygQGJTQoGgTkBgVKFKgGGT0OCC4ETJwwQgx2CYAQWghOCSjWCK?= =?us-ascii?q?wSDLlNmgUuRSYxDnQKDFQSDOoFFhGCTGQQWCZQrkEagf5M9AYQBAgQGBQIWg?= =?us-ascii?q?VQ4gVszGggbFWUBgj89EhkOjisNCYNOils/Ay8CNgIGAQkBAQMJjUQBAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:lRT0G6nR0fsqNOqOes+BIvvi4wPpDfLF3DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwvc aogfgdyFvImC8cMUtMpfmsMLSNKEm8ybdb+o8UVI3JYCDDtHGzJI9vqavuqgePJwTb9upQkZ htaLJ/DtqYNzRHpP336gW5DNosqePvmMuVrN3DxHRgRxwCUc5dxjp+Yzz6LmRGAC1PBZ80D/ Onl6l6jgvlX2gLZcKmAXRAeO7Pq7Tw5ffbSC9DIQI74w+Tij7t0prGKlyz2xcTVC4n+8ZBzV T4 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,309,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="34800012" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Apr 2021 15:24:38 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.88] ([10.61.144.88]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 136FObnl025590 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:24:38 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1EB7E1E-BAE7-45E0-BD93-9CF72C73DA6E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:24:37 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.88, [10.61.144.88] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Second try: Today's Agenda 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, 06 Apr 2021 15:24:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D1EB7E1E-BAE7-45E0-BD93-9CF72C73DA6E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1F5CC82E-D585-4B44-9EB9-D4CFE2647393" --Apple-Mail=_1F5CC82E-D585-4B44-9EB9-D4CFE2647393 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sorry- somehow hit send accidentally. We=E2=80=99ll be meeting at 8:00pm GMT today. Today=E2=80=99s agenda is as follows: Note Well Agenda Bashing Discussion of Chairs=E2=80=99 Proposal Moving on from here Brief introduction of the editor=E2=80=99s draft AOB Join: = https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=3Dm884d5c6d11a3b5048be2cc9cb1844d= 0d Eliot --Apple-Mail=_1F5CC82E-D585-4B44-9EB9-D4CFE2647393 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Sorry- somehow hit send = accidentally.

We=E2=80=99ll be meeting at 8:00pm GMT today.

Today=E2=80=99s agenda = is as follows:
  • Note = Well
  • Agenda Bashing
  • Discussion of = Chairs=E2=80=99 Proposal
  • Moving on from here
  • Brief introduction of the editor=E2=80=99s draft
  • AOB

Join:  
https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=3Dm884d5c6d11a3b5048be=
2cc9cb1844d0d
Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_1F5CC82E-D585-4B44-9EB9-D4CFE2647393-- --Apple-Mail=_D1EB7E1E-BAE7-45E0-BD93-9CF72C73DA6E 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmBsfTUACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMoFQf9HSbSWEk4lNYGD8uhYpWN6Qii3rTsle82/lzw8YuBnkGdHz/Ebc0rI8/k YbFF8UrW0iPG096/FpZHQTiAJs/XMesxiXICd/MvP9sLpw5z/jnpeuaaiVgAxqvh S9fU2shwOTb8gZHDkqnSaC2FstrhWDYI8cizx9hPl/I/A1rATywcAwgNmwP/N299 u+HaBxIs3sfKfxSfahSTKD/r92hVWkdPJVbmZgn1BGDiHomVyws4ihdwMZR/dEjX qF6QAPPi6IXxCZFBTDVBP2WsOR9FvDMNTcyWNK1SKQOGlm0DQg1K8B+THuIXxfPh O/S34htQMKw+1mH8/tSJ5zvoGU1F5Q== =AUvd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D1EB7E1E-BAE7-45E0-BD93-9CF72C73DA6E-- From nobody Tue Apr 6 08:34:44 2021 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 D112D3A259B; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:34:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-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_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=akamai.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 iv9Kf88Pxi0B; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 5A5DC3A2595; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 136FPn8U030752; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:34:36 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=mv2mdKqsxHkDRZrdZ3h/071Iem8k7wYE2vBVRn4CRhI=; b=GV5rpIPjLrDPZkeT/9z8SxOVusNP8Hn0KXGgT9ItAIApkkzcfND3VBk0H6/t5rHp0Jg7 wUOxQlXLeFvRiwpRlaojokfiUBhcR/AjX/2qabbHM/TtEMtn2tYQsEOCHWFsQE8ILfpy wmF+k7xZrp+mfKbQQYBqqBxOabIGb1axpEWf3Xe9gE5/aeDYzdwXFD8St37iR2Us8i5j N93Xw641WyssDQMkVR5b7xlGYSnpp7PKWqOor2LE4pwJKX/mZ5XheULizYxPoRfbeQLD nHZoesm8V5KfZ9e7qgw6//274MvmkLR/syRLd4WtMDlVzE84zXSL383mlBRoS0S/kB4Q /w== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rrm63dkp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:34:35 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 136F7Q7i002369; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:34:35 -0700 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.34]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 37q2trppxt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:34:35 -0700 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:34:34 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.012; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:34:34 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Second try: Today's Agenda Thread-Index: AQHXKvj9lxSimGEaGkq8FVqhJmR7Zaqnnr2A Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21040401 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FC2CC36ABD3B4934925F402E9561E0B2akamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-06_04:2021-04-01, 2021-04-06 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=987 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104030000 definitions=main-2104060104 X-Proofpoint-GUID: OW91YYcUFdTzdpcPodt87aoHt011_mIU X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: OW91YYcUFdTzdpcPodt87aoHt011_mIU X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-06_04:2021-04-01, 2021-04-06 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=917 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104030000 definitions=main-2104060105 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.60) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint5 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Second try: Today's Agenda 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, 06 Apr 2021 15:34:43 -0000 --_000_FC2CC36ABD3B4934925F402E9561E0B2akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ICAqICAgV2XigJlsbCBiZSBtZWV0aW5nIGF0IDg6MDBwbSBHTVQgdG9kYXkuDQoNCldvcmsgY29u ZmxpY3QsIHdpbGwgbWlzcyB0aGlzIHVuZm9ydHVuYXRlbHkuDQo= --_000_FC2CC36ABD3B4934925F402E9561E0B2akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9EDD9849DDC1CD4E9AAAC7BA95387526@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6NSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJp Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6Q29uc29sYXM7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDkgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5 bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3Jt YWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxp YnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCnAuTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCwgbGkuTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFw aCwgZGl2Lk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5OjM0Ow0KCW1hcmdp bi10b3A6MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47DQoJbWFy Z2luLWxlZnQ6LjVpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp IixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTIwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNv bmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmOw0KCWNvbG9yOndp bmRvd3RleHQ7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7 DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAx MS4waW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlv bjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLyogTGlzdCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGxpc3Qg bDANCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6MTMwOTYyNzExMjsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10eXBlOmh5YnJpZDsNCglt c28tbGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0ZS1pZHM6ODY0MTg1OTQ2IC0xODI5MzQ0NTU0IDY3Njk4NjkxIDY3Njk4 NjkzIDY3Njk4Njg5IDY3Njk4NjkxIDY3Njk4NjkzIDY3Njk4Njg5IDY3Njk4NjkxIDY3Njk4Njkz O30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsMQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtc3RhcnQtYXQ6MDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt bnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674OYOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10 YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWlu ZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpX aW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJbXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7DQoJ bXNvLWJpZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCgltc28tYW5zaS1mb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xk O30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsMg0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt bnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9y bWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5v bmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVp bjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw0DQoJe21zby1sZXZl bC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQt aW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpTeW1ib2w7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw1DQoJ e21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsN Cgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlz dCBsMDpsZXZlbDYNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZl bC10ZXh0Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVy LXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5Oldpbmdk aW5nczt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDcNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0 Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CtzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28t bGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJvbDt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDgNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3Jt YXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7 DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsN Cglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsOQ0KCXttc28tbGV2 ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1sZXZl bC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0 LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwxDQoJe21z by1saXN0LWlkOjE3ODU4ODQwMzU7DQoJbXNvLWxpc3QtdGVtcGxhdGUtaWRzOjQwOTY2MzQ3MDt9 DQpAbGlzdCBsMTpsZXZlbDENCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CtzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6LjVpbjsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt bnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCW1zby1hbnNpLWZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwxOmxldmVsMg0K CXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6MS4waW47DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0 Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCgltc28tYW5zaS1mb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7DQoJbXNvLWJpZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1 bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjEuNWluOw0K CW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJ bXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxp c3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw0DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2 ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjIuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw1DQoJ e21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjIuNWluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVm dDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw2DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1z dG9wOjMuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVu dDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5n ZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxl dDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjMuNWluOw0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNv LWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3Qg bDE6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt dGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjQuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt cG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw5DQoJe21z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNv LWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjQuNWluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsN Cgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0Kb2wNCgl7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KdWwNCgl7bWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT IiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIiBzdHlsZT0id29yZC13cmFwOmJyZWFrLXdvcmQi Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8dWwgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi10 b3A6MGluIiB0eXBlPSJkaXNjIj4NCjxsaSBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCIgc3R5bGU9 Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjttc28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMiI+V2XigJlsbCBiZSBtZWV0 aW5nIGF0IDg6MDBwbSBHTVQgdG9kYXkuPG86cD48L286cD48L2xpPjwvdWw+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxk aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5Xb3JrIGNvbmZsaWN0LCB3aWxsIG1pc3MgdGhpcyB1bmZvcnR1 bmF0ZWx5LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0K PC9odG1sPg0K --_000_FC2CC36ABD3B4934925F402E9561E0B2akamaicom_-- From nobody Tue Apr 6 11:26:16 2021 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 F0A3F3A2B6E for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:14 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 uLH5cdYVFb6T for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -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 1FD8E3A2B6B for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id k8so14126903iop.12 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:26:09 -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=r7SZ55WMLnTU/7X1A/FQxMDITPDkbcxgUnI+T9DGwzc=; b=CoHMEnSGuAXDE7hxpzFdCHPWopmQArgVv3FfvO3uG4pbXJissicfXCjKTqh3dRM8+u eMPkhwk00Uq6zxOqbabx02xMiDyxdrmAu8xsNC/9d64cH17bFCXpnPk7lNz7CBlNJLb0 up283axj/qK4k2Sx0x8HmgEnO3CWR34O+/rNG65N3WHjgv/igVVn9OWBcZDfM3ZkzywN XPd+9PNJ4AWPrIG4+YXpQJPh6jhuRNqdQlMtJVnfUj4wGytol56v2rWmi6+SkFd6Z4Is z/KX6/NZmBKIOebFJqSzo9nLXT1It3ZYN6qmb8CTfNEX1P5X+J26NyHpCf+d5HmFMS1+ RVZQ== 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=r7SZ55WMLnTU/7X1A/FQxMDITPDkbcxgUnI+T9DGwzc=; b=XvtjakkRSCISmTTJ0/s+RH28zEeSl/sWsDuy9SlsbLIxM29lTDPs7EhzHUQyuG0wb5 0XCwSzwoXC7UJRGr1tuXTdygMuIaFifbDJaDLm1MjBDS76yvj2pGH1zcDsXZyI3H+Mww PeyMse3wFANnwr1wPZ4qzj1aJfcCdvf9uF6EJSjufChJzBrDjoCF7RGp/3O5Ix0eGHty tbjkvkUAWivvTWtsw9+Iq9fdI3NCDmOjcEitBBmnEQG7ni1Ysfj3mS3JzKozNMRlfXIk /DGDj6LqUeCk4Nosjgkw2A52LNKHfRSk3eyT/W9632BjxuIIeSeIenh8X6QPgdzge3at An7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LeojhvTQvOtMa5KoYxuy9qDMl7bn/Pae1l0Cy6LGhIwv/24Jg DudSKhrBJvGscUxrLoHokEbVI6pOmd9kbeK7v3aHyj4QoBUU1Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYP+E7STsqLYYfTbCO4mHx2m8w51VRtbm7+SRy2qeBWHDoqWT0kgDzT3McE9clfqiaNSttUJjqja6xYe/dAJo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2603:: with SMTP id m3mr29722047jat.64.1617733567787; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52799FD5-F97E-413E-888C-C44656B8AB7E@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52799FD5-F97E-413E-888C-C44656B8AB7E@cisco.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:25:31 -0700 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Brian Rosen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a64caa05bf51f2f4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Chairs' Proposal to move forward on process and RS[EA] Oversight 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, 06 Apr 2021 18:26:15 -0000 --000000000000a64caa05bf51f2f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eliot, Thanks for posting this. I think that the Evolution Process is a good starting point and while it no doubt needs fine tuning, I would be comfortable putting it in a draft under the understanding that mnot indicated, namely that there isn't a presumption that it has consensus. I'm less certain about the RS[EA] Selection. It seems like an odd mix of vague (effectively, the LLC can make any arrangements they want), with concrete (it has to have a 1 year term with 3-5 year extensions). I also think the bit about the feedback is weird. I agree that the LLC should do feedback, but it's hard to square that with fixed-length contracts, especially when you say "the LLC will then make a decision". I think it would e better to just leave this (and the term) at the LLC's discretion. -Ekr On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:03 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Everyone, > > Thanks for your patience. As promised at our meeting, the chairs are > putting forward a proposal to move forward. > > This proposal comes in two parts. The first part is the process for how > drafts are developed and approved =E2=80=93 or not. It is loosely based = on what > Joel presented at IETF 110, but also incorporates earlier agreed text abo= ut > the RFCWG. In this proposal, the RS[EA] does get a say on the Approval > Board. However, that person=E2=80=99s is one voice out of five. > > As a companion part of this proposal, and as discussed at IETF 110, the > second part discusses the hiring and oversight of the RS[EA]. > > A few points: > > > - The first part in particular is intended as a compromise between > very different points of view. We do not expect anyone to be perfectl= y > happy with what is written, but we do ask everyone at this late stage = to > withhold objections unless they positively cannot live with what is wr= itten. > - Assuming there is rough consensus for this base text, changes can be > made again based on rough consensus. Surely some will be needed here = and > there. > - The second part of the proposal is something on which we have spent > less time. It provides a fair amount of freedom to the LLC to set tim= ing > and working method of the role. We expect this text to evolve a bit m= ore, > but again ask that it be accepted as base text. > > > Our proposal is that people take a day or so to read through and consider > both texts, and then ask questions or comment on list. When commenting > settles down, we will open a consensus call. Because there was a specifi= c > request for the accountability text as part of all of this, the consensus > call will be to take both parts as a whole as base text. > > Without further ado, please see the text below, which can also be found o= n > GitHub: > > > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/draft-ev= olution-process.md > > And > > > https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/blob/master/rse-hire= -and-accountability.md > > Eliot & Brian > > =E2=80=94 > Part 1 > > > DRAFT RFC Evolution ProcessScope > > This procedure is applicable to the evolution processes relating to the > management and evolution of the RFC series, including format, tooling, > publication, dissemination, and overall management of the series. > Structure > > The RFC evolution process is governed as follows: > > - The RFC Working Group, whose job it is to develop proposed changes, > and establish community consensus of those changes. > - The The RFC Approval Board, whose job it is to provide final review > of proposals. > > Each group is described below. > The RFC Working Group (RFCWG) > > All RFCWG meetings are open to any participant, subject to intellectual > property policies which must be consistent to those of the IETF [Note > Well]. At body's initial formation, all discussions are to take place on > open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. The RFCWG > may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of communication (f= or > example, Github as specified in [RFC8874]) that are consistent with > [RFC2418]. The group will conform itself to an anti-harassment policy > consistent with [RFC7154,RFC7776]. > > IETF chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoint and > oversee a co-chair of the RFCWG. > The RFC Approval Board (RFCAB) > > The RFC Approval Board consists of representatives from each RFC stream > (at the time of this writing, the IAB, the IETF, the IRTF, and the > Indepenent Series), as well as the RS[EA]. The sole function of this grou= p > is to review draft proposals approvedby the RFCWG. The RFCAB may choose i= ts > chair as it sees fit. The group is primarily expected to operate via emai= l > and through any necessary tooling. A record of all proceedings (no matter > the form) will be kept. > Update Process > > The following procedure is used to update the RFC process: > > 1. Someone writes a draft proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft. > 2. If there is sufficient interest in the proposal, RFCWG will adopt > the proposal as a working draft, much the same way a working group of = the > IETF would. > 3. The RFCWG will then further develop the proposal. All members of > the RFCAB are expected to participate in discussion relating to all > proposals. > 4. At some point, if the chairs believe there may be rough consensus > exists for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working group la= st > call. > 5. After a suitable period of time, the chairs will determine whether > rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comments have been receive= d and > substantial changes have been made, it is expected that additional las= t > calls may be made. > 6. Once working group consensus is established, a community call for > comments will be issued. Should substantial comments be received, the > working group will again consider those comments and make revisions as= they > see fit. At this same time, the RFCAB will consider the proposal. > 7. Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls for > comment should be issued, and again comments considered. > 8. Once all comments have been been addressed, the working group > chairs will transmit the latest proposal to the RFCAB. > 9. > > Within a reasonable period of time, the RFCAB will then poll on the > proposal. Positions may be as follows: > - "YES": the proposal should be approved > - "CONCERN" : the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be > addressed. > - "RECUSE" : the person holding the position has a conflict of > interest. > > Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position MUST explain their concern to the > community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable. > > A CONCERN may be made for two reasons: > - The proposal represents a serious problem for the group a particular > member represents. > - The member believes that the proposal would cause serious harm to > the overall series, including harm to the long term health and viab= ility of > the series. > > No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RFCWG. > 10. > > If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RFCWG. > Again, all RFCAB members MUST participate. > 11. > > If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is approved. > Again, if substantial changes have been made, an additional call for > community input should be made. > 12. > > If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain, a > formal vote of the RFCAB is taken. If a majority of RFCAB members vote= to > approve, the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is returned to the RF= CWG. > In the case of a tie, the proposal is approved. > 13. > > When a proposal is approved, a notification is sent to the community, > and it is published as an RFC. > > The roles of the LLC Board and ED > > LLC Board members, staff, and the Executive Director, are invited to > participate as community members in the RFCWG to the extent permitted by > any relevant LLC policies. > Appeals > > Appeals of RFCAB decisions may only be made based on process failures, an= d > not on the substance of a proposal. These appeals SHALL be made to the IS= OC > BoT within thirty days of the RFCAB decision. The ISOC BoT MAY decide onl= y > whether a process failure occurred, and what if any corrective action > should take place. > Discussion > > The intent of this policy is to provide an open forum by which policies > and procedures of the RFC series are evolved. The general expectation is > that all interested parties will participate in the RFCWG, and that only > under extreme circumstances should the RFCAB members have to hold "CONCER= N" > positions. To avoid that situation, WG members are encouraged to take RFC= AB > concerns seriously, and RFCAB members are encouraged to make those concer= ns > known early, and to be responsive to the community. In particular, people > are encouraged to respect the value of each stream, and the long term > health and viability of the RFC series. > > This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation. In > particular, RFCAB members should be consulting with their constuent group= s > on an ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider a proposal, > there should be no surprises. Appointing bodies are expected to establish > whatever processes they deem appropriate to facilitate this goal. > > > > > Part 2 > > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTRS[EA] Selection > > The RS[EA] will be searched for and vetted by a committee formed by the > ED, taking into account the role definition > and > any detailed job description that we further develop. The search committe= e > may ask others to take part in the selection process in confidence. The > initial length of service shall be for one year, but then further > extensions will be for three to five years. > RS[EA] Ongoing Performance Evaluation > > Periodically, the ED will send out to the community a call for input on > the performance of the RS[EA]. The evaluation will be based on criteria > specified in the role definition. Was the RS[EA] an active participant in > all/most meetings? Did the RS[EA] provide useful advice to the RPC and to > the WG? Did the RS[EA] exercise good judgment in terms of any role he or > she would have had on the Approval Body? Was the RS[EA] effective in > advising the community on appropriate actions to take or not take? > > The ED will then review the feedback, consulting with stream manager > representatives, and then produce a recommendation to the LLC Board. The > LLC will then make a decision, taking into account that recommendation. > > Whether the RS[EA] role is structured as a contractual or employee > relationship is left to the LLC and ED to determine. > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000a64caa05bf51f2f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eliot,

Thanks for posting th= is.

I think that the Evolution Process is a good s= tarting point and while it no doubt needs fine tuning, I would be comfortab= le putting it in a draft under the understanding that mnot indicated, namel= y that there isn't a presumption that it has consensus.

<= /div>
I'm less certain about the RS[EA] Selection. It seems like an= odd mix of vague (effectively, the LLC can make any arrangements they want= ), with concrete (it has to have a 1 year term with 3-5 year extensions). I= also think the bit about the feedback is weird. I agree that the LLC shoul= d do feedback, but it's hard to square that with fixed-length contracts= , especially when you say "the LLC will then make a decision". I = think it would e better to just leave this (and the term) at the LLC's = discretion.

-Ekr

On Wed, M= ar 24, 2021 at 6:03 AM Eliot Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Everyone,

Thanks for your patie= nce.=C2=A0 As promised at our meeting, the chairs are putting forward a pro= posal to move forward.=C2=A0

This proposal comes i= n two parts.=C2=A0 The first part is the process for how drafts are develop= ed and approved =E2=80=93 or not.=C2=A0 It is loosely based on what Joel pr= esented at IETF 110, but also incorporates earlier agreed text about the RF= CWG.=C2=A0 In this proposal, the RS[EA] does get a say on the Approval Boar= d.=C2=A0 However, that person=E2=80=99s is one voice out of five.

As a companion part of this proposal, and as discussed at I= ETF 110, the second part discusses the hiring and oversight of the RS[EA].<= /div>

A few points:

  • The= first part in particular is intended as a compromise between very differen= t points of view.=C2=A0 We do not expect anyone to be perfectly happy with = what is written, but we do ask everyone at this late stage to withhold obje= ctions unless they positively cannot live with what is written.
  • Ass= uming there is rough consensus for this base text, changes can be made agai= n based on rough consensus.=C2=A0 Surely some will be needed here and there= .
  • The second part of the proposal is something on which we have spe= nt less time.=C2=A0 It provides a fair amount of freedom to the LLC to set = timing and working method of the role.=C2=A0 We expect this text to evolve = a bit more, but again ask that it be accepted as base text.
<= br>
Our proposal is that people take a day or so to read th= rough and consider both texts, and then ask questions or comment on list.= =C2=A0 When commenting settles down, we will open a consensus call.=C2=A0 B= ecause there was a specific request for the accountability text as part of = all of this, the consensus call will be to take both parts as a whole as ba= se text.

Without further ado, please see the text = below, which can also be found on GitHub:


=
And


Eliot &am= p; Brian

=E2=80=94
Part 1

=

DRAFT RFC Evolution Proce= ss

Sco= pe

This procedure is applicab= le to the evolution processes relating to the management and evolution of t= he RFC series, including format, tooling, publication, dissemination, and o= verall management of the series.

Structure

The RFC evolution process is governed as follows:

  • The= RFC Working Group, whose job it is to develop proposed changes, and establ= ish community consensus of those changes.
  • The = The RFC Approval Board, whose job it is to provide final review of proposal= s.

Each group is describ= ed below.

The RFC Working Group (RFCWG)

All RFCWG meetings are open to any p= articipant, subject to intellectual property policies which must be consist= ent to those of the IETF [Note Well]. At body's initial formation, all = discussions are to take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome = to comment / discuss. The RFCWG may decide by rough consensus to use additi= onal forms of communication (for example, Github as specified in [RFC8874])= that are consistent with [RFC2418]. The group will conform itself to an an= ti-harassment policy consistent with [RFC7154,RFC7776].

IETF chair and the Independent Submissions Editor= shall each appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RFCWG.=C2=A0

The RFC Approval Board (RFCAB)

The RFC Approval Board consists of representatives from e= ach RFC stream (at the time of this writing, the IAB, the IETF, the IRTF, a= nd the Indepenent Series), as well as the RS[EA]. The sole function of this= group is to review draft proposals approvedby the RFCWG. The RFCAB may cho= ose its chair as it sees fit. The group is primarily expected to operate vi= a email and through any necessary tooling. A record of all proceedings (no = matter the form) will be kept.

Update Process

The following procedure is used to update the RFC process:

  • Someone writes a draft proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft.<= /li>
  • If there is sufficient interest in the proposa= l, RFCWG will adopt the proposal as a working draft, much the same way a wo= rking group of the IETF would.
  • The RFCWG will = then further develop the proposal. All members of the RFCAB are expected to= participate in discussion relating to all proposals.
  • At some point, if the chairs believe there may be rough consensus e= xists for the proposal to advance, they will issue a working group last cal= l.
  • After a suitable period of time, the chairs= will determine whether rough consensus for the proposal exists. If comment= s have been received and substantial changes have been made, it is expected= that additional last calls may be made.
  • Once = working group consensus is established, a community call for comments will = be issued. Should substantial comments be received, the working group will = again consider those comments and make revisions as they see fit. At this s= ame time, the RFCAB will consider the proposal.
  • Should substantial changes be made, additional community calls for commen= t should be issued, and again comments considered.
  • Once all comments have been been addressed, the working group chairs w= ill transmit the latest proposal to the RFCAB.

  • Within a reasonable period of time, the R= FCAB will then poll on the proposal. Positions may be as follows:

    • "YE= S": the proposal should be approved
    • "= ;CONCERN" : the proposal raises substantial concerns that must be addr= essed.
    • "RECUSE" : the person holding= the position has a conflict of interest.

    Anyone holding a "CONCERN" position MUST explain their conce= rn to the community in detail. The explanation may or may not be actionable= .

    A CONCERN may be made for two reasons:

    • T= he proposal represents a serious problem for the group a particular member = represents.
    • The member believes that the propo= sal would cause serious harm to the overall series, including harm to the l= ong term health and viability of the series.

    No CONCERN should ever come as a surprise to the RFCWG.

    • If a CONCERN exists,= discussion will take place within the RFCWG. Again, all RFCAB members MUST= participate.

  • If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is approved.= Again, if substantial changes have been made, an additional call for commu= nity input should be made.

  • If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN position= s remain, a formal vote of the RFCAB is taken. If a majority of RFCAB membe= rs vote to approve, the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is returned to = the RFCWG. In the case of a tie, the proposal is approved.

  • When a proposal is approv= ed, a notification is sent to the community, and it is published as an RFC.=

    • The roles of the LLC Board and ED

    LLC Board members, staff, and t= he Executive Director, are invited to participate as community members in t= he RFCWG to the extent permitted by any relevant LLC policies.

    Appeals

    Appeals of RFCAB decisions may only be = made based on process failures, and not on the substance of a proposal. The= se appeals SHALL be made to the ISOC BoT within thirty days of the RFCAB de= cision. The ISOC BoT MAY decide only whether a process failure occurred, an= d what if any corrective action should take place.

    Discussion

    The intent of this policy is to provide an open = forum by which policies and procedures of the RFC series are evolved. The g= eneral expectation is that all interested parties will participate in the R= FCWG, and that only under extreme circumstances should the RFCAB members ha= ve to hold "CONCERN" positions. To avoid that situation, WG membe= rs are encouraged to take RFCAB concerns seriously, and RFCAB members are e= ncouraged to make those concerns known early, and to be responsive to the c= ommunity. In particular, people are encouraged to respect the value of each= stream, and the long term health and viability of the RFC series.

    This process is intended to be one= of continuous consultation. In particular, RFCAB members should be consult= ing with their constuent groups on an ongoing basis, so that when the time = comes to consider a proposal, there should be no surprises. Appointing bodi= es are expected to establish whatever processes they deem appropriate to fa= cilitate this goal.




    <= div>
    Part 2

    = DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

    RS[EA] Selection

    = The RS[EA] will be searched for and vetted by a committee formed by the ED,= taking into account the=C2=A0role definition=C2=A0and any detailed job de= scription that we further develop. The search committee may ask others to t= ake part in the selection process in confidence. The initial length of serv= ice shall be for one year, but then further extensions will be for three to= five years.

    RS[EA] Ongoing Performance Evaluation

    Periodically, the ED will send out to the community a call = for input on the performance of the RS[EA]. The evaluation will be based on= criteria specified in the role definition. Was the RS[EA] an active partic= ipant in all/most meetings? Did the RS[EA] provide useful advice to the RPC= and to the WG? Did the RS[EA] exercise good judgment in terms of any role = he or she would have had on the Approval Body? Was the RS[EA] effective in = advising the community on appropriate actions to take or not take?

    The ED will then review the feedback, = consulting with stream manager representatives, and then produce a recommen= dation to the LLC Board. The LLC will then make a decision, taking into acc= ount that recommendation.

    = Whether the RS[EA] role is structured as a contractual or employee relation= ship is left to the LLC and ED to determine.

    --
    Rfced-future mailing list
    Rfced-future@iab.= org
    https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
    --000000000000a64caa05bf51f2f4-- From nobody Tue Apr 6 13:43:31 2021 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 199953A2FF9 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 eKka0pPZ9sRH for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:43:25 -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 7D0DE3A2FF7 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFKHJ70KTz1nsZM for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1617741804; bh=FZM2OGEoYQWD/w5qIXy+pkOZy5zU1YGsAv+DD/Q1hBc=; h=Subject:From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LkOpdvGR6jsoAZaoi/QkDBdCAfCe0zwle0R7ilV+sDMt7ntk8Ae75axRlZiKpfE77 hqyIW/RGlAeTQnsbvb4Ii1JoQlbU5A/cUwwsdZjA9yhfB7UMVhXJvgKqyQ+zfWBbff cPEx1IhMxT+MsdqEWYiplDNXyR31aDu0H7RNKR34= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FFKHJ3xhqz1nsYX for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joel M. Halpern" To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> Message-ID: <51f9941b-4c5f-3c87-40ad-03d9181d803e@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:43:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 06 Apr 2021 20:43:30 -0000 Please open an issue for this. Thank you, Joel On 4/5/2021 3:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and > you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting > points you threw in to help. > > As far as I can tell, the following: >   The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies >   regarding the RFC series.  This document specifies such a structure >   through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its >   policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). > is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list.  It has > multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the > authority to change this structure. > I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this > adopted?" which is indeed important. > > I realize that everything is open for discussion.  I do note and > appreciate that some things are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to > have less agreement. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/5/2021 3:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D >> that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals as well as >> from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This I-D is very much a work in >> progress and there are doubtless errors of omission and commission. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ >> >> Peter >> From nobody Tue Apr 6 14:16:19 2021 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 490E43A314E for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:16:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.898 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 FWVsDdMhmTbJ for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:16:07 -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 D27233A3129 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617743766; x=1618953366; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=tTJuZD2CI9+AT4z23PlR0DgSn9ZEYk3UdeCshXIQmuQ=; b=WCv/QcqRXMqMQ5dfl0pgs1gwDzzwtuldmHUa19IysDSqVSKP5FtEbSmq s9wVcjtOqvoOVaZpIQtxwJjCLzlFZ7IMweTm7o75JbqAOS/icAg0kvEmi 7x8mWo1RmGXffv0Xx4GASUhcAB80QbtWSJ/4T+O5Y7mgWE6ugav1LZGod k=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A6AAAZz2xglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?UEEAQELAYMhVgEnEjGNRohOA5RFiCAEBwEBAQoDAQEdAQoMBAEBhFACgXcmN?= =?us-ascii?q?wYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVQDYZEAQEBAQIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QFsCwULCwQULicwBhOCcQGCZiEPq151gTSBAYNTQUSEbQoGgTkBgVKFKoZQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?4ILgRMnHIJfPoJgAQEDhSmCKwSBZmBkBFMgAjkLFRY/CYEbnUmdAoMVgz6BR?= =?us-ascii?q?YRgkxkEH5QrkEagf5JaYwGEAQIEBgUCFoFqIoFbMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ6OO?= =?us-ascii?q?INXhRSFRz8DLzgCBgoBAQMJjREBAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:4ANFfqBw7uRquO/lHeku55DYdL4zR+YMi2QD/UoZc203TuWzkc eykPMHkSLlkTp5Yh0dsP2JJaXoexLh3LFv5415B92fdSng/FClNYRzqbblqgeBJwTb+vRG3a ltN4hyYeecMXFfjcL3pDa1CMwhxt7vys+VrNzTxXtsUg1mApsIh2xEIz2WHUFsSA5NCYBRLu v42uN8uzGidX4LB/7UOlA5WYH41r/2vaOjRRYHAhI9gTP+6Q+A2frdDwWS2AsYXndpx7ovmF K19TDR1+GEr+yxzAPa2ivoy6lu3PHlytdFGaW3+68oFgk= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,201,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="34806323" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Apr 2021 21:16:04 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.84] ([10.61.144.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 136LG3Bk014147 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:16:04 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <548FB079-78E6-40DE-9E3F-EA08F03AD262@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5EEC5A42-732C-453F-8111-CEE4C7CC9690"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:16:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.84, [10.61.144.84] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 06 Apr 2021 21:16:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5EEC5A42-732C-453F-8111-CEE4C7CC9690 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B87FF900-52B1-406A-B569-A9C362B5DDC6" --Apple-Mail=_B87FF900-52B1-406A-B569-A9C362B5DDC6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Can be found here: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/39 = Eliot > On 5 Apr 2021, at 21:51, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and = you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting = points you threw in to help. >=20 > As far as I can tell, the following: > The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies > regarding the RFC series. This document specifies such a structure > through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit = its > policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). > is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list. It = has multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the = authority to change this structure. > I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get = this adopted?" which is indeed important. >=20 > I realize that everything is open for discussion. I do note and = appreciate that some things are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to = have less agreement. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 4/5/2021 3:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Hi all, >> In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D >> that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals as well = as >> from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This I-D is very much a work = in >> progress and there are doubtless errors of omission and commission. >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ >> Peter >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_B87FF900-52B1-406A-B569-A9C362B5DDC6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Can = be found here:

    https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/39<= /a>

    Eliot

    On 5 Apr = 2021, at 21:51, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

    It = ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and you) = believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting points = you threw in to help.

    As far as I can tell, = the following:
      The IETF LLC shall also = provide a structure for defining policies
    =   regarding the RFC series.  This document specifies such = a structure
      through a new RFC Series Working = Group (RSWG), which shall submit its
      policy = proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
    is an = interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list.  It has = multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the = authority to change this structure.
    I expect you put it in = as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this adopted?" which is = indeed important.

    I realize that everything = is open for discussion.  I do note and appreciate that some things = are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to have less agreement.

    Yours,
    Joel

    On 4/5/2021 3:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
    Hi all,
    In = preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D
    that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals = as well as
    from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This = I-D is very much a work in
    progress and there are = doubtless errors of omission and commission.
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/<= /a>
    Peter

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

    = --Apple-Mail=_B87FF900-52B1-406A-B569-A9C362B5DDC6-- --Apple-Mail=_5EEC5A42-732C-453F-8111-CEE4C7CC9690 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmBsz5MACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNIowgA1N/MMb75FwV2giNCsRMBTFr88q6b8nfBjeD+WK606QAV5DVjz67dX2yD AWnkbSWwjf0Bd2xjtFvjDF2UJmIz0u386d/92/x+AGoyf00WoRX7Dq2bph+tVYFj DMmmlhptKgK+Od4k91Nkl88xcMaOEneox5jCUB2CS41i3r7AwzFRwdquzlFSbN1P GB60GBvULAjkqhix5R4F1nj2+B+OPmp21f4loUeGpSOO2N4bGRJXs6xTqqlZgFnU 05whTkm023bMq96aW9F4zerooj7MGpr2Z1i3lrKYTdEXJgCuDkPL/12Azvr7yqE+ z+TYeIQAHgC21XpkpFr55rSAOuq2Ww== =86Ax -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5EEC5A42-732C-453F-8111-CEE4C7CC9690-- From nobody Wed Apr 14 23:02:06 2021 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 636E73A0F22 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 5T3YaOxzP8pO for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:01:59 -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 750DF3A0F3A for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:01:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4620; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1618466519; x=1619676119; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=paat/9lNM0t+pKvN1gvWRPePLzn2ldZZ1LiMK0uYpS0=; b=WAycO9E2uPCSzh00IullmEY8fWLwvI9n5BXpfo/XXAOy0O6EGzk/OWnn +owaMyMAtO4+Zzq9b+wZQESkWJkV0NG0wSTxH2N5rbq6g3OcFa8FilNBs mw86hFJuZ7NaGuT4SokxmlIupYzmIspe/7r/jrAv1b+rAf7ji2xMN5RuS 8=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BDAAAo1ndg/xbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?T8GAQELAYN3AScSjXiIa5RJhiSBfAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGEUIF2JjUIDgIDA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHEThV2GaFwfhCMBgwerQHeBNIEBiVwQgTkBg?= =?us-ascii?q?VKFLYcXgguBOhyILIJ/gisEgkYCYgRzAkQLID9CAVIPnU+dB4MWBIM7gUaLf?= =?us-ascii?q?4t/BBYJlC+QSrRGAYQBAgQGBQIWgVYCNoFZMxoIGxU7KgGCPz0SGQ5WnBQ/A?= =?us-ascii?q?2cCBgoBAQMJjQ4BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:I8J6Gqrl0KIx6xT1SUeFPSIaV5rKeYIsi2QD101hICF9WMbwra CTtd4c0gL5jytUZWE4lbm7VZWobHvA+fdOgLU5EqylWGDd0leACI1594Ptz3nBFkTFmNJ18a dlf+xABMbrDV585PyX3CCCH9wtwMaK/cmT7I+0815WUQpoZ6t8hj0XNi+nFCRNNWp7LKt8MJ Kd48ZdzgDQG0g/X4CcGmQPWfTFqpntkp/rCCR2YyIP2U2pkS6i7qL8Hlyj+iomFxlLwbsk7A H+4mnE2pk= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,223,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32625590" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 Apr 2021 06:01:57 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.120] ([10.61.144.120]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13F61u3Z027077 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 06:01:57 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C04724A-F8FE-492F-A267-4ACB8F7A8456"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:01:56 +0200 Cc: Brian Rosen To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.120, [10.61.144.120] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Minutes from last week's meeting 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, 15 Apr 2021 06:02:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6C04724A-F8FE-492F-A267-4ACB8F7A8456 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_956E56A1-6C73-4F9A-B1E3-C2F08BAD686A" --Apple-Mail=_956E56A1-6C73-4F9A-B1E3-C2F08BAD686A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Minutes of the RFC Editor Future Development Program April 6th 2021 The chairs brought the meeting to order, reintroduced themselves, = reviewed the Note Well, and agenda bashed. There as no bashing. Agenda Item 1 Review and discuss merged proposals as the basis for a first draft. = Eliot put forth the model that this would need to be rough consensus to = change the text that is currently in a consensus check. There was = strong objection to this proposal, and a lengthy discussion ensued. At = the end of the day, the work will be processed as follows: People can create issues, and there must be rough consensus before those = issues (and the document) close. The chairs will outline in a separate message how to open issues. Going forward, the group agreed that the deadline for the first tranche = of issues should be one month after the close of last call on the base = text. We will set our next meeting for sometime after that deadline. There was a brief introduction of the new draft that Peter Saint-Andre = posted just before the meeting. People should review this draft, which = we will shortly issue a call for adoption. Eliot mentioned that the chairs need to scrub the issues list, and will = do so, with an indication of their view on this list. Next meeting is TBD, as discussed. Look for a doodle soon. --Apple-Mail=_956E56A1-6C73-4F9A-B1E3-C2F08BAD686A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Minutes of the RFC Editor Future Development Program
    April 6th 2021

    The chairs = brought the meeting to order, reintroduced themselves, reviewed the Note = Well, and agenda bashed.  There as no bashing.

    Agenda Item 1

    Review and discuss = merged proposals as the basis for a first draft.  Eliot put forth = the model that this would need to be rough consensus to change the text = that is currently in a consensus check.  There was strong objection = to this proposal, and a lengthy discussion ensued.  At the end of = the day, the work will be processed as follows:

    • People can create issues, and = there must be rough consensus before those issues (and the document) = close.
    • The chairs will outline in a separate message = how to open issues.

    Going forward, the group = agreed that the deadline for the first tranche of issues should be one = month after the close of last call on the base text.  We will set = our next meeting for sometime after that deadline.

    There was a brief introduction of the new draft that Peter = Saint-Andre posted just before the meeting.  People should review = this draft, which we will shortly issue a call for adoption.

    Eliot mentioned that the chairs need to scrub = the issues list, and will do so, with an indication of their view on = this list.

    Next meeting is TBD, as = discussed.  Look for a doodle soon.= --Apple-Mail=_956E56A1-6C73-4F9A-B1E3-C2F08BAD686A-- --Apple-Mail=_6C04724A-F8FE-492F-A267-4ACB8F7A8456 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmB31tQACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMMqggAhBbrJu6o0nk7cosJa2EYFBQsoR63/5BzXTsazWRrUK+IwfxPRqX9kf+W 84FYhhuuN1XJbs9ZnTrSOLuBEms3/qpxWCNTas8ejwZlc6kbBYkGVE5J8pw1qxya 1Zq7cLmrhyDZRatZyjAHTk6QIchunRhISqs1S8XvYaKtnBRMqVDdgiTMSb0z0cbS N38nt/YSfNqktUuaL/1K5vSglAEas4CsF7nIDn6B9HTXRcSl6cXCgwlF33GHq87F 54ybP9PrzDyejmmwra0g8bzZGBKKHR8ZJGZRwXT+Df0F14YbfJigGydFu/NXwMV3 9yvNngSBx2sSGqKmwwfvdy8C3XNYdQ== =ZRI2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6C04724A-F8FE-492F-A267-4ACB8F7A8456-- From nobody Wed Apr 14 23:03:35 2021 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 1310E3A0FB0 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:03:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_NONE=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 mLcNEhdxL-bW for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:03:29 -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 1707A3A0F4D for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 23:03:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2051; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1618466609; x=1619676209; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=ScJMFrLyKpzVyoYLQgMIept4uPyHxRmHBWe6It64UeU=; b=C24D8oiQt9T2i9zmMJVrc13jwkU/GiX917M7auFgCIA80ACJNZor0wln TYdFttVTYDSSZ89PO0l+L45x4u/avZQhq0mRlhYDk6GG2C7q5PBboXvQ1 pKCAqNOrjBtHX8wLyWI+J3wNMU+zZJU+IdtfJjLOTcu3qhx4KHpmDlomE Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CaAQD51XdglxbLJq1aHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBghKDeAEnE?= =?us-ascii?q?oR0iQSlVAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGGRiY4EwIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGB?= =?us-ascii?q?BQBAQEBAQEBAWiFXYZugTMCg2MBgwedLo4WeYEygQGJXBCBOYFTjESCC4E6D?= =?us-ascii?q?BCCMQGFeoJKNYIrBIJIgVkCRCs7nnedB4MWBIM7gUaXfgQWCYNNinuFZ5BKj?= =?us-ascii?q?zGlFQGEAQIEBgUCFoFrIYFbMxoIGxU7KgGCPz0SGQ5WjWKOMj8DZwIGAQkBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMJjQ4BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:cDljj6EFOh0jY50/pLqEAceALOonbusQ8zAX/mp2TgFYddHdqt C2kJ0guCPcpT4NVBgb+OyoF7KHRRrnn6JdxYUKJ7+tUE3HtQKTQr1KyYvnz3neFzbl9uhbvJ 0NT4FEBNf9DUd3gK/BiWHSL/8b3NKF/Kq07N2w815RS2hRC51I3kNcAgafHlYefngkObMJUL yB+8FAuz2sPVMQY8jTPAhhY8Hz4/vWiZnhfRkKQyQC1TDLpzap5LnmeiLovCsjbw== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,223,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="34998707" 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; 15 Apr 2021 06:03:27 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.120] ([10.61.144.120]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13F63Qih027501 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 06:03:26 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E8CD326A-F71A-403C-B9D0-FB58AC591126"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:03:25 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.120, [10.61.144.120] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text 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, 15 Apr 2021 06:03:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E8CD326A-F71A-403C-B9D0-FB58AC591126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 All, The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting = point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As = discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those = issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then = directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on = this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for = discussion. We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this = posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. = Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the = subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the = URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which = we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus = check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? Eliot --Apple-Mail=_E8CD326A-F71A-403C-B9D0-FB58AC591126 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmB31y0ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNsUgf/Z48SqIPy6Plh/PaNgB9jwp5d3N3SlQNEGmYoNvRFkaGDTILe7spcudNU G3zQ12yt/XNeFNV/rSLZUYhODxOgxqk+ycBJ6H8YNOU3W/nXwc7y1tIwW/CBiYu/ Z8h0jL/ISm5XXbsi6V13vhDuwWT+rX++Qgg6MkTmBWCy+Jiw1+I4A6w85XYV8fvN bwplV0YduVFOyukLgLhuNniVGkNo1ZwNHpeTYwPxVgoVEpvMrVIKFLDB7uv+peKM Ar26IU47kLV7u/k8Sxr8ZTQzca0Qsqidho4rEEptOhzhwbUmStWeoRsQLX2mac4E TlUKFijdtCe3f6uNFpEYuhP2BEbwvw== =tRPC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E8CD326A-F71A-403C-B9D0-FB58AC591126-- From nobody Thu Apr 15 08:56:00 2021 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 955FF3A24E2 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:55:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 FrcfLMhXElg0 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:55:55 -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 BD5BD3A24DF for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1201; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1618502154; x=1619711754; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=U6VaIPcZkPh0+8nLai3Ux5od5cFqI6PDsA85J1K2xI4=; b=LnWhTnf6oW4MncFvemhH7EKYt+c+V1Yjam25nv5gxwZfjDD/aU7dt5tI Mp3ZmGNIjMGvpVoKkzJoLzHVTt3SQIhsmbLWtZoj8FIthi/7ulEEfk4vP Nax+U/45lAfzIC9RmI0ELVpkDLuUxFsmB5SW3FQReL+xzRCmv1AhLTmqs A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AeAAACYXhglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?UAFAQELAYN3AScSjXiZYYl5gXwEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBhkYmNgcOAgMBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?gMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVdjAYBgwecYo4Wd4E0gQGJUhCBO?= =?us-ascii?q?QGBUoxEgguBOhyEIRODeIJ/gisEhjIIO51QnQeDFoM/gUaXfwQfgzwBkHSQS?= =?us-ascii?q?o99pAhHAYQBAgQGBQIWgVoBMYFbMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDo42Ao4yPwNnAgYKA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDCY0OAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:m/tOZq79VJGoXzCTpgPXwCHXdLJzesId70hD6mlaTxtJfsuE0/ 2/hfhz73LJoRsYRX1Io7G9EYaaR3e0z/RIyK0cJ62rUgWjmGbAFu9fxK/jxzGlJCHk7O5a0s 5bH5RWM9H7AVhkgcuS2mDReOoI+sWN86yjmI7loEtFcAcCUcFdxjY8Lg6aF0FsLTM2ZqYRJd 67+tdNoSamdDAxaMm2b0N1OtTrlpnsiI/sZwIACloczDS2yRms6LL8DnGjr3Ujbw8= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,225,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35076745" 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; 15 Apr 2021 15:55:50 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.102] ([10.61.144.102]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13FFtnfV007848 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:55:49 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_271E6FE3-850A-45D1-ABE2-4A53F4876951"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:55:49 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.102, [10.61.144.102] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] IETF 111 session planning / conflict management 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, 15 Apr 2021 15:56:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_271E6FE3-850A-45D1-ABE2-4A53F4876951 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, Sometime soon, Eric and I will be asked to submit a session request for = IETF 111. If you send us your conflicts within the next week or so, we = will attempt to work around the most common one or two. Thanks, Eliot --Apple-Mail=_271E6FE3-850A-45D1-ABE2-4A53F4876951 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmB4YgUACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejM8cgf9HoVP428lIb0j/jVsQnvWNmXZkTgmJa84bbXp+vQOGJ4AXWTrFwH9VZVM IssQf1fCRZUsVmK/uXgqF3TQXv44w2ThSqsi+F5DAneUjcy2PLOoH9T/et7ju3B0 5PiIhDkkg+dfzJf0/ToXBcqK/IUuL5m6JzjFPGfR90+nuSo3lXaw665Bw10UbuQk GXw47bifmPYjk51PCKwmL8RhQDcvVX3A7PwflfcioJqQLNaL00k9IWj+e+x0tpcZ PvLSaKKR0UfYuquTt7fDAbT8el5lMVTEDMyAWKXoJqI/njECHrexQLfazLLKAnbq PzXtKya9FEkI7BtDm2cay4YPwwZWsQ== =egQu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_271E6FE3-850A-45D1-ABE2-4A53F4876951-- From nobody Thu Apr 15 22:04:35 2021 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 534083A1565 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:34 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Kdce8WKsaRGd for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (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 E5A5A3A1563 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id ot17-20020a17090b3b51b0290109c9ac3c34so15655970pjb.4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:30 -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=b9+HzvmXrExPElWv9NTZClbXZ0CGNqAv1TJJK6E+zyw=; b=toAZwp9HFyw+A5aqEl90s8YsNzNVVGMRzIyJ2J9rMwMFeGRydk7O2RJBX6QIpDYgnT kuny4Jl/zwKig2eMIwomBenEesh5RT6CFfx0tseINiZItj07WAdTIKJX8TD9nw8pStTw J/zj0sCNH1brHyyUmoIOKLCrIioODyy2klgdP94WvzS4CiFRQWlKBEgMGWHmpbvHjoyq StCIFNbKY8n9rVkXvdiXCXtvlmELC5aE31LpEb0obA7IS6PCOhAM0mIw4Awzes2kQQ6l 60umAdUZae7r9KuZlRXfSSowfT+Oc1sFkRr9YVY5lCsah0hWBMLjS/dTlj5IPbfGn+GR gcKA== 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=b9+HzvmXrExPElWv9NTZClbXZ0CGNqAv1TJJK6E+zyw=; b=MjgQTT0Iu9LvDdaptVhSa7zbMHiPth03bFOrCyJNjrHFeifVWyzM+t5yOVCahHsDTJ v6G08joQeYg7mG/NbxTbgxA7lsmf459WaptKzEPSkCNcUy4y1j0kCiX/KM7XR/97ukLd /r13YvJz1qfpgxxpjfHj6FV3o4Kebq9fibSICQ8s0y5nY0IFCN7QNRXUw/oKA0ELET85 2yrjWhvhUNK57cbXUJn3e+GoZKchX23w8U3TIaM/Gua+GjwUz596Hepi1/C5e4eQLCeN BUefqTWMsVALoyGXmbAlN7ToE0eimY8FtX7QlTI4m+zCmqhehShHYMISUYvhF9VEzrWR QZcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QiXmg8TW75wGh3Xf0+uEuOMsJfsDc6i2s5x/hcbMcgrQrkSpN 3HIhtVCn+LOVWwY2S2bF/HYPMBRT8bIl8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykJjPDKxz9qP7huNvK+7hda1ssnrFaG9B8NOAB+bgE8gLzVcnx1B8DkjGGr8tt+cZ3B3g95g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f298:: with SMTP id fs24mr7794996pjb.129.1618549469330; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y204sm3772238pfc.198.2021.04.15.22.04.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:04:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <8b4f56d9-8062-6dc8-c6c3-3dc294ff2968@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:04:23 +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] Closing consensus on starting text 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, 16 Apr 2021 05:04:34 -0000 Just for clarity, is there any significant difference between opening an = issue, and opening an issue on the current text of draft-saintandre-rfced= -model? I'm maybe old-fashioned, but I find it much easier to comment on = a draft than on a fragment in Github. And I find it confusing that we now= have two places where text is sitting. Regards Brian On 15-Apr-21 18:03, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, >=20 > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting= point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discu= ssed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be o= pened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards= on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group= has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. >=20 > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this postin= g. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how= we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. >=20 > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of th= e subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the = URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. >=20 > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which = we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus ch= eck. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? >=20 > Eliot >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 15 23:11:55 2021 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 A93543A17D3 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 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_NONE=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 MM_updLEPnX4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:11:48 -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 C53723A17D1 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:11:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2806; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1618553507; x=1619763107; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=zOwSLdwXcl/lgzO1sh5RX4B4UObK5Lq0vkv2q7OM/w4=; b=Og4Xl3V4HRiiyMHkheLSBRC9959tpZOaOf9Wr2/sqxMSSVWLIB30rOyJ qQCXGCPk0aFiM7CAZFPz13/nJKt2z2iHZEqU1RN0fJggrq94mpuWlOym7 yNUZR1U9pYiUEHGiPMNSxzF+0b2PW3pNAMsWdMzgK304FQ9uGyYxkOYuD A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BXAABDKnlglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYISgyJWAScSMYRDiQSIbQOKL5I4BAcBAQEKAwEBHQsMBAEBhFACgXQmO?= =?us-ascii?q?BMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohVANhkQBAQEDAQEBI?= =?us-ascii?q?UsLBQsLGCoCAiEGMAYTgnEBglUDDiEPq2F5gTKBAYRYgmkNghcKBoE5gVOMA?= =?us-ascii?q?kOCC4E6HIIwLz6CHkIBhHg1gisEgkg8KlMgAjkLKzueepwsW4MWgz+BRpJHh?= =?us-ascii?q?ToEH4NOinyFaJBKjzKUbZAwAYQBAgQGBQIWgWshgVszGggbFTsqAYI+PhIZD?= =?us-ascii?q?laNYohrhUc/Ay8CNgIGAQkBAQMJjQ4BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:edTFQKywohEATXnd0NcvKrPwrr1zdoIgy1knxilNYDZeG/bo9P yGtvIdyBPylXItSGgt8OrtBICsSW7RnKQV3aA/JrGnNTONhEKJK8VY4ZLm03ncHUTFltJ18a t7aaBxBJnRADFB4PrSxAm9H5IezMKc8Kau7N2w815XQQtna75t4m5CY27xLmRMSAZLHpY/Hp aHj/A3wgaIQ2gdbciwGxA+MdTrmtujruOFXTc2Qzou6AyDllqTmdrHOind+AsCWDVSxrpn1m 7Jn2XCl8OemsD+7APA3GnO6JkTov/d859oAcyBjdV9EESKtjqV X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,226,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35095929" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Apr 2021 06:11:45 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.102] ([10.61.144.102]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13G6Biw2017812 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:11:45 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <9858104C-955E-48CE-B6BE-E98B27FCB933@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF8C61B7-7462-42D5-9FA8-5404C8262BF1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:11:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8b4f56d9-8062-6dc8-c6c3-3dc294ff2968@gmail.com> Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org To: Brian E Carpenter References: <8b4f56d9-8062-6dc8-c6c3-3dc294ff2968@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.102, [10.61.144.102] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text 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, 16 Apr 2021 06:11:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AF8C61B7-7462-42D5-9FA8-5404C8262BF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Yes, the focus should be on the draft at this point. Eliot > On 16 Apr 2021, at 07:04, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Just for clarity, is there any significant difference between opening = an issue, and opening an issue on the current text of = draft-saintandre-rfced-model? I'm maybe old-fashioned, but I find it = much easier to comment on a draft than on a fragment in Github. And I = find it confusing that we now have two places where text is sitting. >=20 > Regards > Brian >=20 > On 15-Apr-21 18:03, Eliot Lear wrote: >> All, >>=20 >> The chairs have not received any significant objections to the = starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. = As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those = issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then = directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on = this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for = discussion. >>=20 >> We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this = posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. = Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. >>=20 >> To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of = the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include = the URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. >>=20 >> The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting = which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week = consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? >>=20 >> Eliot >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_AF8C61B7-7462-42D5-9FA8-5404C8262BF1 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmB5KqAACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNwMgf/XMfO3aVqSVsVKLbLfyAZIFFtDTmxv8ldX+rLQxJ6+bjUkhyAKvVmZ059 1wAF0wN1flbvEc3J6PWdvJu7GCl6sndH00s2pXUGW70NagEBrAB/xPfgB007aIx2 w/bn8nJotZoe68Nrer+VV44rzg0XSPStreDNWQ8cbHmxId0OV6frlQW6yxXGpfzp CYkIHv78aMXdTkP87aFIa7c8EH1/KKT6Pr9lu5QU8D+ewo2+ysmOvYXZAndmMi4m jwyxyK4aHbxV14goxWIAkXYmVMbvTuDKgxHHd3sKtbdD0aoOj1DE3IKW88YKxgsB C15dnms0enMsIKxUJ7AA1Ibc7LCvzA== =PqH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AF8C61B7-7462-42D5-9FA8-5404C8262BF1-- From nobody Wed Apr 21 08:43:19 2021 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 2E40A3A2CDC for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=2.7, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 7VJf56byrtdz for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 722573A2D1C for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13LFh8sW030807 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:43:08 +0100 Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2683F22044 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:43:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1189E22042 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:43:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (74.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13LFh7eL015695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:43:07 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:43:06 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <057701d736c5$06987170$13c95450$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: Adc2xHpHWKZQwAYaR0C7ZVqt1EPgrw== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.74 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-26106.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.926-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--11.926-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-26106.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--11.925800-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: er5VKMiLVuAYGF7zJ4U4GyL/q8mnAJ3Eoae+ev6zOlL+xopnKgrm2oO3 HyUMPRbH1WmUevMp5PY0rRAOLFFL/Lz5DD0+tkb148SQ1JLtjzbvCt8FeEins19LCSy+c6yaZEf R0R+SCFg56WD6kuo88Yd0hMQ2X+lk7Nt4R8Lu/VciJT2HHpbp5v1cMx7OW3+8r1uVaZUKda+kwF TCCpbFRy87ZJz7QD0NWl2S4SrquwTsPfAgU/ew1cqquP3qhQpq2WLl0tGDDHoxkLdkW7C5qmeXK E2/2edXsDmNfXkN93y5Ij+GzzNZ5NFx3T4w4JQ6dhnFihmbnwWpvf+jmz45wyOP4tckGzxR5IKd ok6w7HQIzfEJdt8iAno0/mi7Koa42akPijKtjPVwju9EALAXQvZfafJjZZIJTmg3Ze6YIL1QCsm fAegbdBtEfFDr6iuaBlFNdihulaa/IXaVjUkD1MzSKGx9g8xhWWzNoXx+GF7DEFKtpdD231H8WO wovuq3vmdOkp8sgGuEhwB9AOwVaOyt+a9Mtf+enMRCqQzD5ecyyi+n+H050Xt8F07wTFIuptDGp bIzg7ptpbFcTalG+BOY7Wc2dlsH7VzWdf1uCr+x3AAMA9OOcPiH64jt3FfE+QYBHm2fyHc0gR1A eSC4YLZ+BR/pqDqgxC/adCc9upjOrVNaM4+O10hwlOfYeSqxAajW+EL+laMMhhD4aDyhmjDHxnr 5pBtwW8YvtW5WE4T5/AwQXCNXrjBzrPx7v021kaKeaInbIOk7GNv1BBu35KUK7qQpWC8SKmLHdy HFPs5udEHjsosnVHM+8tolp72rl8quHiKVRoeeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCii7lXaIcF/Ww7M6dy uYKg/cUt5lc1lLgkU6UkIr/V+20QRlrBF3eZUR3opCVRmk/INV80pPll5Lv14m6ZMT3aXEmNVLo lr1HKUckbSguVRc= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 21 Apr 2021 15:43:18 -0000 Hi all, I have a number of relatively painless comments on the current (i.e., -00) version of draft-saintandre-rfced-model. Feel free to open issues or handle these comments in any way you think appropriate. Best, Adrian === Abstract I think that the Abstract is too minimalist. The single sentence is a fine thing to say, but the Abstract should contain some text similar to that in 8728. The Abstract should also include a statement of obsoleting 8728. So, something like... Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series are published on behalf of the IETF, the IAB, the IRTF, and the Independent Submissions Editor. In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC series among four primary functions: the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), and the RFC Publication Center (RPC). This document reflects the experience gained with versions 1 and 2 of the RFC Editor Model documented in RFC 5620 and RFC 8728, and obsoletes RFC 8728. --- Introduction I feel that the Introduction is a bit thin. While we probably don't need a whole lot of text, some background about the series and the rfc editor function is probably helpful. We can lean a lot on RFC 8729. We should also describe the manner of obsoleting RFC 8728 (i.e., the changes). Something like... Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series have been continually published since 1969 [RFC8700]. The RFC series is described in [RFC8729]. RFC 8729 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Editor" to identify the collective set of responsibilities for publishing documents in the RFC series. The processes and organizational models for publication of these documents have changed significantly over the years. Most recently, in 2009, [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in 2012 [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728]. In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC series among four primary functions: the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), and the RFC Publication Center (RPC). This revised model remains consistent with RFC 8729. This document obsoletes RFC 8728 by making a full update to the RFC Editor model, changing the responsibilities of existing bodies and functions, and introducing new functions. Specific changes from the version 2 RFC Editor Model are presented in Section 7. --- There are two cases of 2119 "MUST" in the document. I don't understand why those cases are specifically called out for special treatment when other "must" and "should" remain in lower case. I would suggest moving everything to lower case and removing Section 2. --- Section 3 has The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies regarding the RFC series. This document specifies such a structure through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). Well, either this document defines the structure (which is subject to community consensus) or the LLC defines the structure. Maybe, The IETF LLC shall also facilitate and support a structure, specified in this document, for defining policies regarding the RFC series. That structure is based on a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). --- Section 4 Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force or future policies defined as specified in the next section of this document. I stumbled over "policies defied as specified...". I think you mean "policies defined following the process specified...". --- Section 4 Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. If the IETF LLC opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns can be raised with the IETF LLC. I'm unclear whether this is intended to be a duplication of concern to be raised with the LLC, or to be raised with the delegated body. So it should be either: Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. Even if the IETF LLC opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns should be raised with the IETF LLC. or: Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. If the IETF LLC opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns should be raised with the delegee, but can also be raised with the IETF LLC. --- 5.1.1 subject to intellectual property policies which must be consistent with those of the IETF [RFC8179] Perhaps this should reference by BCP number (BCP79). Additionally, shouldn't we also mention BCP78 at the same time. --- 5.1.1 The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. I am OK with this very open process, but I wanted to check that the group is content to leave it entirely up to each of those two people how they make the appointment. Additional constraints might include: - nominations period - open feedback period - length of term - number of terms This text might usefully include a reference to 8730. --- 5.1.1 Members of the RSAB are also expected to participate actively in the RSWG so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the policy definition process. I believe it was stronger than this. In particular, the discussion seemed to imply that the intention was that all issues that the RSAB members might have would be raised during normal RSWG discussions and not be "late surprises" in the RSAB review period. Thus... Members of the RSAB are expected to participate actively in the RSWG so that they are fully aware of proposals early in the policy definition process and so that any issues or concerns that they have will be raised during the development of the proposals and will not be left until the RSAB review period as described in Section 5.2.1. --- 5.1.2 o The RFC Series Editor/Advisor I suggest a forward pointer to Section 6. --- 5.1.2 s/THE RSAB/The RSAB/ --- 5.1.2 I would like to raise the issue of whether the designated voting members may appoint delegates. For example (and not to imply anything about anyone) the IETF chair might be considered to already be very busy with enough tasks to occupy their time: they might prefer to be able to appoint a delegate to fill this position for them. (It is possible that this is contained int he existing OPEN ISSUE, but I don't read it that way.) --- 5.2.2 s/A individual/An individual/ --- 5.2.2 This all looks good, but I wonder whether the WG chairs should be additionally charged to advertise proposals that have been adopted to specific communities where appropriate. This is suitable vague that it doesn't place a heavy burden, but it does point up the responsibility to cover odd cases. For example (fatuous example: please don't discuss!), if there was a proposal to stop publishing RFCs that presented security profiles preferred by specific governments, one might hope to involve the people who have previously authored such documents. --- 5.2.3 The ISOC Board of Trustees MAY decide only whether a process failure occurred, and what if any corrective action should take place. Notwithstanding my previous comment about 2119. This isn't a "MAY". It could be shaped as "MUST only." Or simply "may". --- Given that this document obsoletes RFC 8728, we need to be careful that we aren't discarding anything we really want to keep. Seems to me that there is a fair amount of material about the RPC, budget, IANA, and security that we want to retain. From nobody Thu Apr 22 14:21:06 2021 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 4FC033A0D42 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:21:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 egwO-2kzxFgF for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (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 C50F43A0D39 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id g1-20020a17090adac1b0290150d07f9402so47068pjx.5 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:21:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rbgYLhMR1mIeZzuWwHnzB6p7jNGyKcwwMOxvG4vqGFM=; b=n3wSpZQNNecvnl73BERMueoc2koSYZ9nkEcL8s9f7Txugh3mR3TdRzQJZLeWRc2wX/ ecUVI7r4d5Pc0Bb5Bwcpc80cPT0wrjxkBz39UrRzXcIgn+JMqPJXmT8ut1K0jW5FMw4e gSIyxZ4ESgj/XmDZWAPOFEkFlcCe5e6bUI+RL2Afz2HaD9K3vNswD7uVz/GGHIvDnClE odxFcUDoTnLQ5o8Be3x8yV++IfRDSWU3UAKS8plmp1dKKO91MJMb4x3IujgA+pHLfhhP bZLQbfGIDrt8xtGWSjV2FXmUNOJGNn/6J1FGrnwT/3ZanZqpkk3yT5w/4emxfgMAFyuB r3Cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rbgYLhMR1mIeZzuWwHnzB6p7jNGyKcwwMOxvG4vqGFM=; b=gx1ItsJqJH0gG9Ch4tmocxrmjllu3Q+RQt4kRF4pGl3tOmPRWnx00cNV9om3qZ8CqQ F1hS1FrIQ6vVC/D6MtP3t0gxWTf4BFeoQdqQiU3wgBYM6H7VNiG8zqKVv/pAOTQpM1DJ BpQALPWgj9nvrUn7v6JErQXWwb/LO6/ZFc2hjfWmrtsy4Y7B6hb99KiKmTlsXEpy+tnO D0t3ZuI1c8Or34WTaBxyc8Sr/fjxDMY1AvtPt37xcAtQxx7bwKEsZ/adgPiOQobz8zuG 7ffYGnPxBpjxYJUIEIiDuosU/PuDjhwhib+mYglmo9hMk9OCqOxTQf/zJTKis8dHQe/l Ap9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XxspDDzAI7KbeXRlD98YRxVIaAwWhRytgVwYEmXGd569AuRiV 5OmQl4wAPbBzpuZXtuTMAHobmJprYOQOdA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgGTjIUfK1O12U5X48qQxqJUTfzbOyFGzJ7s7CNu9ZwSdA6sFMGbBTG9a0vSUbOK9Ese2PfA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b68a:b029:e9:7643:6335 with SMTP id c10-20020a170902b68ab02900e976436335mr835777pls.2.1619126459833; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n23sm3002901pgl.49.2021.04.22.14.20.57 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian E Carpenter To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <77e46cca-9488-aca8-5f87-84d0e0fc62a1@gmail.com> <95a13912-2670-23c3-d729-6aa973522c27@mozilla.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:20:55 +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: <95a13912-2670-23c3-d729-6aa973522c27@mozilla.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model-00 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, 22 Apr 2021 21:21:04 -0000 Hi, At the high level, I think the draft is about right in terms of level of detail and description of what is more or less agreed so far. Of course there are gaps and open issues, but I assume we will cover them on the list. I agree with Adrian's review. One job that needs to be done is to check that everything in RFC 8728 is taken care of. That could mean one of at least three things for each item: a) abolished (e.g. the RSOC; already covered) b) replaced (e.g. whatever the RSE/A ends up as) c) intentionally unspecified (because we should not micro-manage by RFC) The third category might be the hardest, since we all love bikeshedding so much. Maybe there should be an opening statement that details have been avoided wherever possible, to avoid micro-management. So while I agree with Adrian that there is valuable material in RFC 8728, I think we should prune it wherever it looks like micro-management. Agreeing on the RSE/A role appears to be the main gap in the -00 version, which I assume we will discuss here soon enough. I have some concerns about "6.1. RSEA Selection" but I think those should be discussed after the role is clarified. One specific phrase needs fixing IMHO: "Specifically, this document defines a structure in which ultimate authority lies with the IETF LLC..." Er, no. Ultimate authority lies with the community. Try: Specifically, this document defines a structure in which contractual authority lies with the IETF LLC... Regards Brian C From nobody Fri Apr 23 04:09:44 2021 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 453F53A18CF for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:09:43 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org 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 2_ojbyZGbrTo for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (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 5E7743A18D5 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:111a:ae16:2b19:6db2] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:111a:ae16:2b19:6db2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27639600342; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:09:17 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1619176157; bh=FRNr7NH7cBS8a/64Lg41Uwhk8Mq1hZSuO9wa1NjBZeM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=FFz/xQZObg147RBMBi30nWAl4bLzCcZrk7ygyFn3JUrhA2w7J1KFiTPrKVnumrjBV vRXMV6TMcCr7U/amLzyTcdkXRrVKrgqMA0XpcjlUHNAp/RSqGO9I9zcLUjShuuaUYm CzxAVcbsxej6WG7foaOa0P+kN/Y5jBupSvlMotiE= From: Lars Eggert Message-Id: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_93231016-6333-4697-9364-0EE4D91C04A6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:09:13 +0300 In-Reply-To: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-MailScanner-ID: 27639600342.A2C5A X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 11:09:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_93231016-6333-4697-9364-0EE4D91C04A6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On 2021-4-5, at 22:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ I gave this a quick read, below are some initial thoughts. Thanks, Lars Section 4, paragraph 2, comment: > Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC = Production > Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force = or > future policies defined as specified in the next section of this > document. I'm not quite sure what "Continuing publication" is meant to express - = can "continuing" be removed, or else, what does it signify? (Or was the = intent to say "Publication ... shall continue to be handled"?) Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: > 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of = confusion for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational discussions, because this group will be significantly different from = "real" IETF WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other name = may reduce that possibility for confusion. Section 5.1.1, paragraph 2, comment: > The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each > appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. I can understand why each separately appoints one chair, but why would = each then continue to oversee only the one chair they appointed? Section 5.1.2, paragraph 4, comment: > The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows: Are there members other than voting members on the RSAB? If not, just = call them members? If yes, who are they? Section 5.1.2, paragraph 7, comment: Is there an intention for the RSAB to gain additional (voting) members if new RFC streams are created in the future? Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: > 1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the = RSWG. > Again, all RSAB members MUST participate. This is an unenforceable MUST. Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: > 2. If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is > approved. Again, if substantial changes have been made, an > additional call for community input should be made. It's not quite clear what "addressed" means. It would be clearer to say = "A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved." Section 6.1, paragraph 2, comment: > process in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for > one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five > years. It will IMO be difficult to hire the desired senior professional on a = one-year contract. --Apple-Mail=_93231016-6333-4697-9364-0EE4D91C04A6 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----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEmpq0ZpSoejRmyhheVLXDCb9wwVcFAmCCqtoACgkQVLXDCb9w wVf9HRAAoddJiUOpC/lIoEkcDLwHWtj4rQESDIbET+YfbIteWr/jzLlMrknpfRWM eMJIgpNm9UljKzWl0rDkHRRyWIO+ua2gUSjuwWx6ooFZ9vcvs7he2MAet38w/TAn SzmrgHHlrd2ZDldvpKqRfITf/ZDttJg8uf2vqp37eQoItPakXRmxtUp1KhNzgY8Z QrF/EwH+pPkPidnfPlOrRFQdtbk4kdB7xoPUsVsTIO51fEVPxFJlBysLwtgydXvm 9rzLYDvhUwqRGbJPdrRgnCBZ9zORMtKqbNtB2Tb5WOJgrx18mrtRqsHyphC1oI6t +neJKzDPmys8CPsuA9t1AdqWJ0KzJEN+qIfinUDASNzINpWsQ6WDQHJz79Wf+Obe kKBsEX2arDKSIPn1+A0aIesw1ORoQ714XswtxZbPkHyGYKUi9rKhcecdBadUw9y9 P7LFp/DW9ZUetq5PlsJyMnlKxhYgrQVWKrElnv4FG1jFufS87M5qDHTib8j2iTBs mgrYTY9VE4Fz+6NI6ruo7W40EASD55rzXYLLRZ0+ZYKq97FiRQAVaIJo73lIHKQl MSl2DzNxlQvluLSMP1jzrg9kDIZfnlC6V3r3h50ZrR8VS/JwpMMTSM4B6Zp5yu2w mY0qvsSU/rlp80nUh0SJiSzVktmJg6S1W0L4AS7g9ZdGqraTPk8= =9JMc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_93231016-6333-4697-9364-0EE4D91C04A6-- From nobody Fri Apr 23 04:39:59 2021 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 6763D3A19D3 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:39:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 N7ovEXcXYqBq for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:39:53 -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 E71153A19D7 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:39:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5224; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619177993; x=1620387593; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=FZT68UUS5ESR2UKdYvl9aogmFdpytYnGga1wKsOPfSI=; b=LtswoOtTz+A2I34/T7lTExBln5tXpR+RcavmVKwnNODJiRuJA0itrxjK Ag8A8XSkDyUxLCne6Kt57Y4U7plppx04U8tekp5AfM6+pABrGXmHVpMxV D4RgYgTSfEzoJegpB070bHc6hnN1Zr46ij47lPyQFoN4V/j3PUtkKq/D9 c=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A6AABTsYJg/xbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYIBAwEBAQsBgSKCVQEnEjGEQ4kEiGyHfoxOiCAEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?FACgXkmNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEcROFXYZEAQEBAwEjVgULC?= =?us-ascii?q?wQUKgICVwYTgnEBgmYhpy96gTKBAYRYhG0QgToBgVKFLwGGVEOCC4ETJwwQg?= =?us-ascii?q?l8+h1k2gisEgy4voQGLKZFngxiDQYFGmBQEIZRAkFC0bgGEBQIEBgUCFoFqJ?= =?us-ascii?q?IFZMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDo4rFo4tPwMvOAIGAQkBAQMJjQ8BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:vNnEf6s8l3hx/BnbDAKP5tWE7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,245,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32919009" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Apr 2021 11:39:48 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.111] ([10.61.144.111]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13NBdl8v011484 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:39:48 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A7F70457-EA3F-4518-BDF7-9CCBE1A6F814"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:39:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org To: Lars Eggert References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.111, [10.61.144.111] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 11:39:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A7F70457-EA3F-4518-BDF7-9CCBE1A6F814 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5770B175-C8CE-4915-AB42-9F1D0528505A" --Apple-Mail=_5770B175-C8CE-4915-AB42-9F1D0528505A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Just on this. > On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert wrote: >=20 > Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: >> 1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the = RSWG. >> Again, all RSAB members MUST participate. >=20 > This is an unenforceable MUST. Perhaps so. One way to turn it into an enforceable MUST would be too ay = that if the SRAB member who raised the CONCERN doesn=E2=80=99t = participate in follow-on conversations in {X weeks}, the CONCERN is said = to be resolved. There are a few catches around such a statement: what if someone is = sick? Eliot --Apple-Mail=_5770B175-C8CE-4915-AB42-9F1D0528505A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Just = on this.

    On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> = wrote:

    Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment:
      1.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will = take place within the RSWG.
          Again, all RSAB members = MUST participate.

    This is an unenforceable = MUST.

    Perhaps so.  One way to turn it into an enforceable MUST = would be too ay that if the SRAB member who raised the CONCERN doesn=E2=80= =99t participate in follow-on conversations in {X weeks}, the CONCERN is = said to be resolved.

    There are a few catches around such a statement: what if = someone is sick?

    Eliot
    = --Apple-Mail=_5770B175-C8CE-4915-AB42-9F1D0528505A-- --Apple-Mail=_A7F70457-EA3F-4518-BDF7-9CCBE1A6F814 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCCsgMACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOzuQf/fcyKZ9IP+k1go19yu9JPnoZxL5R4zQB2XG7aWHr6Ax1S4CDWsI424XvV 7r2/aOD3+jN/wMebkrHVB37vYeJ7qDDd+vFykDbyhQ7edzBPPiazSKQzzgtD2yLv Ni6CvTcbu563UH/48IgYwjWmc56XXBSATtmdiGc5JPYYm0Osy7j14aJgUtfbmvfV h8FcLvSi0NBM4UTq4yIWPJSDRn0MoeowqSVBBm05cw4lSoizDhQeoegGmTMRSPB1 Mg410QWzIj1rlm80DLgjosF1sN+hsCDhXodOP0WJKhLG/YI40H+HyLnV5DruU+lS gwtoOd5baW5k/H8OmM5Ls3u0bTVgGg== =l/xa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A7F70457-EA3F-4518-BDF7-9CCBE1A6F814-- From nobody Fri Apr 23 04:42:43 2021 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 5C0A33A19E2 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:42:41 -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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 VG6g0HYs1A32 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:42:40 -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 0D7A63A19E1 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee71742001cc2286065fb6f05.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e717:4200:1cc2:2860:65fb:6f05]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lZuCi-0001W8-2y; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:42:36 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:42:35 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3536F420-6D9C-4734-814A-F755EA0DE567@kuehlewind.net> References: <77e46cca-9488-aca8-5f87-84d0e0fc62a1@gmail.com> <95a13912-2670-23c3-d729-6aa973522c27@mozilla.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1619178160;7dc06cd3; X-HE-SMSGID: 1lZuCi-0001W8-2y Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model-00 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, 23 Apr 2021 11:42:41 -0000 > On 22. Apr 2021, at 23:20, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > One specific phrase needs fixing IMHO: >=20 > "Specifically, this document defines a structure in which ultimate > authority lies with the IETF LLC..." >=20 > Er, no. Ultimate authority lies with the community. Try: >=20 > Specifically, this document defines a structure in which contractual > authority lies with the IETF LLC=E2=80=A6 +1 This also irritated me. From nobody Fri Apr 23 04:43:30 2021 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 500C63A19E9 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:43:29 -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, 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 d9aDLyXcPmJc for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:43:25 -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 F18E03A19EA for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee71742001cc2286065fb6f05.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e717:4200:1cc2:2860:65fb:6f05]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lZuDR-0001W8-VN; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:43:22 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:43:21 +0200 Cc: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9110E9AB-B6A5-4B58-912E-64A582C65BE0@kuehlewind.net> References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> To: Lars Eggert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1619178205;c445eeae; X-HE-SMSGID: 1lZuDR-0001W8-VN Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 11:43:29 -0000 > On 23. Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert wrote: >=20 > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: >> 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) >=20 > Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of = confusion > for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational > discussions, because this group will be significantly different from = "real" IETF > WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other = name may reduce > that possibility for confusion. I agree. Maybe Strategy Group is better than Policy Group?= From nobody Fri Apr 23 05:03:34 2021 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 BA89B3A1A95 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:03:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAY_BE_FORGED=2.7, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 z-TS-c4E7OTH for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:03:28 -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 1CC953A1A97 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13NC3Jul018024; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:19 +0100 Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651752204C; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBCC22048; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (74.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13NC3Ij7025823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:18 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Eliot Lear'" , "'Lars Eggert'" Cc: , "'Peter Saint-Andre'" References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:17 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <07e801d73838$a62add30$f2809790$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_07E9_01D73841.07EFE170" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQGKCNjxekFqVnOHAkmAezJTlH9LugD15Y9gAm7WQzmrQTc0UA== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.74 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-26108.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--25.563-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--25.563-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-26108.007 X-TMASE-Result: 10--25.563400-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: TmlY9+XBoTnxIbpQ8BhdbJeZUDMyphfS+PgcXG6KFc7w9qL6KtqraOnY eJFi2U8R/nq6rpk676xVobReXeO4K6a/ZiFeHp0+LCDCajDZWp07GNv1BBu35Jl8NETW6pKCVdr VvjGE5WE1pDrzfr3EYh7WABAjLSY1V0ThOjwD9lzece0aRiX9WlaxfzL1yJT8NN/3pYF08yPv/7 2zC4hJFdPtBu4qP+B1rUOe87lxJlwVlVZBrluia980oP25F8xpXef5t6q8RcxKmuk8ocl7z5P1t 3ar8lzTC8E8ZCgtbqWX6ygEq2dUrfPxwD+/KEW2dyGMUXsaYABhS5mf1VdlYWrlqJRpVTIgUdfE Kc10rU75B8XGyV5ZN+iQYRQobhwSm32g72hl/zM2aDVyTGx/pxmyTBaqiJvcKMKQ6gRTfq8sWVd l3YcDsKrvzg4zCz2V19EFtPSpihQnnOx92hJJP/VcPDv5PZedfeeWNV6+vcNu9piM4ExvD+RqQA xbWD9+4vM1YF6AJbbVZ0g740lL+QSz8fXAzKymqf5h+4Fvf4AFOa0P4w2W6mWKAuw8W/IlVewru QePtYV0BUzMayKk/EUxAQB4UOhg4+nChwWKK0w= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 12:03:33 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_07E9_01D73841.07EFE170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The undiscussed and so unresolved CONCERN would be voted on by the RSAB. =20 Persistence would be appealable as a process violation. =20 Best, Adrian =20 From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Eliot = Lear Sent: 23 April 2021 12:40 To: Lars Eggert Cc: rfced-future@iab.org; Peter Saint-Andre Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model =20 Just on this. On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert > wrote: =20 Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: 1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG. Again, all RSAB members MUST participate. This is an unenforceable MUST. =20 Perhaps so. One way to turn it into an enforceable MUST would be too ay = that if the SRAB member who raised the CONCERN doesn=E2=80=99t = participate in follow-on conversations in {X weeks}, the CONCERN is said = to be resolved. =20 There are a few catches around such a statement: what if someone is = sick? =20 Eliot ------=_NextPart_000_07E9_01D73841.07EFE170 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    The undiscussed and so unresolved = CONCERN would be voted on by the RSAB.

     

    Persistence = would be appealable as a process violation.

     

    Best,

    Adrian

     

    From: Rfced-future = <rfced-future-bounces@iab.org> On Behalf Of Eliot = Lear
    Sent: 23 April 2021 12:40
    To: Lars Eggert = <lars@eggert.org>
    Cc: rfced-future@iab.org; Peter = Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
    Subject: Re: = [Rfced-future] = draft-saintandre-rfced-model

     

    Just on = this.



    On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> = wrote:

     

    Section = 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment:

      = ;1.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the = RSWG.
          Again, all RSAB members = MUST participate.


    This = is an unenforceable = MUST.

     

    Perhaps = so.  One way to turn it into an enforceable MUST would be too ay = that if the SRAB member who raised the CONCERN doesn=E2=80=99t = participate in follow-on conversations in {X weeks}, the CONCERN is said = to be resolved.

     

    There are a few catches around such a statement: what = if someone is sick?

     

    Eliot

    ------=_NextPart_000_07E9_01D73841.07EFE170-- From nobody Fri Apr 23 05:26:08 2021 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 CFE583A1B55 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.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 DePvdVNFSCxf for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1410111.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.141.111]) (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 F09963A1B54 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:26:04 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SUGsrVgY7Fw6IOf0b362gLx/6PTtfGRxPOWhytDdO6Qi8WtfcOeAX+C4SG5pAD7aZwcvAWZKabTrOl9vGaZ+u5Vvg8VxrDvMN9xtbmrjQd9ctDh7NmciWJz/by3/LZ01WmoLZ9JlcCaX3Y5Ijdo//ds0WXSkJV5goJ0yc+MbRB7wdxPCtuNllHTWbqaIJZBxcws1/6zdrgixOIcFC6sbdC7yQwDX9P4+ougq/SYa55n1q0iQt//Nyfbq5msjcms2N5k5wbWGbHPe1WyRUWqlx7K7d79S/a0D6p+EwFLuMKnesb84XttnSY+7qaYM4Osm+d0jFHn4F4uTVu/pxs642A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HLz7GeHS+duETTrXVP69Q4OLWV9pAwWx4dVbzNPz/D8=; b=IsX4bsgE8iozUHCuzhlSLptsnyRs69Ja1JJvpzQRNSGK6CVcoW2Tnw+zwnytBiZeeU4cD0nuAFZpNyXr1DTynvWOa2J9UYIyuH5+7R8CmSa4MdMDyMiCctuR0pvpFj0eIwnvCFqvMI9RrC1NmSGmpUbvmUH/y2PJGlRCuiOJObtBjo0yOwBB+nvzQKIR7FUw/EqT+jlS5pr9fuszobzxSBFiKyT6tNqGwwDAYsxBzC1bzc9X7btFk/Au+ZSn3kZbur2+KPI0nHccbc1f+wSFrItIZCRdltvxJIrRG+waiD6sDdKyRBScaDoj7ZKUObADqX+HRCQ8lydeiFui9bOIJA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HLz7GeHS+duETTrXVP69Q4OLWV9pAwWx4dVbzNPz/D8=; b=Q/dl/RaxnK9rAX8i1k0J9BQvZ/joyVaIThEoRFeImm8FH+yGvZfyollok0yjRubVtWJIyA310efgfldcQWAaxyNBZB1GQuSWFzMHh3qqugSKA7nsC4duziERjiKMNZ7aDkYnQa/cHj6lOZTYNXEv5LNiYVhxNxx8MS5ftLQz81A= Authentication-Results: iab.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;iab.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:8053::7) by TYAPR01MB4782.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:128::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4065.21; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:26:01 +0000 Received: from TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5996:7da1:39fe:eca2]) by TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5996:7da1:39fe:eca2%4]) with mapi id 15.20.4065.022; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:26:01 +0000 To: Lars Eggert , Peter Saint-Andre Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <6acc9b3d-1adb-bc7c-23da-ff6727c0f7a7@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:25:58 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 In-Reply-To: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [125.205.106.154] X-ClientProxiedBy: TY1PR01CA0197.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:403::27) To TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:8053::7) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (125.205.106.154) by TY1PR01CA0197.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:403::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4065.20 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:26:01 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 2957217e-a84a-4bac-c4e8-08d90652f4a2 X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: TYAPR01MB4782: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:8882; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39840400004)(366004)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(5660300002)(31696002)(186003)(16526019)(86362001)(6486002)(66556008)(66476007)(478600001)(66946007)(4326008)(786003)(16576012)(53546011)(52116002)(36916002)(316002)(8936002)(110136005)(8676002)(956004)(2616005)(31686004)(26005)(6666004)(2906002)(38100700002)(38350700002)(43740500002)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: =?utf-8?B?b29GOFpZejh3QTZwRE43bDdWandtSFE3NWxhZGptaHVSTjRLQmJXYjErOTA1?= =?utf-8?B?cGVuREZ4a0tzNmQ4Z2YvZ09MNzZPN1l4NHc1cVk0VDdxT2NtRlVaSUhyaXZO?= =?utf-8?B?QnloSkFPSkhVd3FwcGp5d1NFOFN5YnJiaG9oWE5BcjFIMkR6WFg5QUhINFBG?= =?utf-8?B?QW1MbUt6Q2RLaGt0N05rRE04S0ZqT1hRbUozbHppa0N6QjhHa3U2VHpYVjBi?= =?utf-8?B?eUFDdnNSOUhtdE9FWVNTODBuakFZUzY2N3l2SWIxcnlOTy9SMVpOSmhJZ3li?= =?utf-8?B?RkRoV2lpTFpwVVFhM0pITzRScnIyVDNYSlpFWjFkTXFac0t2YXEzVEdzb0Fk?= =?utf-8?B?bkJ2UnprcHFiQmdralRNT0ZnYnBXRmthQ2lhdzBQRlpnQmR1dW93bHJUWHBa?= =?utf-8?B?empHdmxTV1ppaFdEUzlidzYxcE42YW9RSVRJak4ya3l2N3RvMThDNzgzQVR4?= =?utf-8?B?MFpKb2NUclByQVpZUDhBTlZMUTgwUUNUdmxlN2lPS2xNRjB2cXZraWsyU095?= =?utf-8?B?RFVsQ1lweU9EVXorU3YzM2dKaFBwM3hXdnd3alRmeDZVLy9lcDA5VVA5K2Nn?= =?utf-8?B?cXYyYUx0SGFRbmxseVhhdW5YRVdwSm1Ia1VvdlZ6aEVnT3lqM3IrR3pPenJ1?= =?utf-8?B?Q3NTQVV1aUExK05VeG45SFJPSldWVTVCZ09JdVlrWkNIY0grU09MTW9SQmNa?= =?utf-8?B?UWNpVTIrakt3NFArRndpK1Y1bm9MRUN6QnFNWkE3b0FJRW1MYmtTYVROMmhX?= =?utf-8?B?NXdKTVdjWGdhS2ZxNU5tNXU2WmpEdkZzem1nL0tIeEVVbldLUUUvb0lYOTVr?= =?utf-8?B?L25FVm9EZGdxOTFna2J4TEEzNTlidEd2WWxlRzJiRjFWQlBOZDdQbXBzbUlF?= =?utf-8?B?MUQrckZJS3crM1V5cHowR21oVWNTbnBEamdNNFFQTHZzOXVnTFZ4cVdkY1R6?= =?utf-8?B?aGsyL2tla2UrQ0IrREJHK2xWY0lUMVV2ZHpZaklENk5kT1ZQV3ZoTXhFSW8r?= =?utf-8?B?R1ZjellTQURBN09KYXFrOWFvWHNMRllobGdsWTgzU0JCd0czMmk2aytLSEZo?= =?utf-8?B?RTdNcE1BdHFOWWk1K3FiWHo3SEtCVmVTUlMxdkpPcVVMVjRnSXZOL0JwK2c0?= =?utf-8?B?a1lnQTlmNU5NODh4WWRZRk9QcVpiUHRrU0lXc0xLN0xhL0tpRkxpVDBFSk5S?= =?utf-8?B?c2ljR0JqUHNFNlFOVjN1cEFZa0ZwWnpodVZVQ1I0ZFBsSWEvS1o3QmV4ZUto?= =?utf-8?B?aDFacktENlZqc25nYkFJYXNicktVaDNMdkhhK1dGQjZROW00MVlSUFJ6OThW?= =?utf-8?B?RGNMaXJOSVFsWWxLRGZDc0FtdGxuSUgwMklIeHYvMS9wbU1VcDFhTHdyQ3Jj?= =?utf-8?B?RDZhZ3gxVE5FcjFVMExGRERLTC9yQTNJYStSZFBvYk4xREZmcTNyQTZ1ejl3?= =?utf-8?B?cHRMSzlydDBzVFUwcVBBNWNidzFiUFJGcU5DaWJmWmwrd2JpV0VvaEFCblFO?= =?utf-8?B?dk10eGJFcGcvN253a25ZdmhRUHBGTy9GVjRMTHpET3FyMFlLSkY5Sjl1N1Q0?= =?utf-8?B?TFpTS2x1YmJGUFdqZ2NRT2F0cGRyTExyL1hkMEtOaDRzOVBSL3VhSEZ5UkhE?= =?utf-8?B?ek1CcFBBUzdPaFhFQ3ljcENRbkgzQkpKZm9mQ29iOTNVbWM2RlVBTlZESkpH?= =?utf-8?B?RGZhN2FlYTdmZVozUnRqaFh1V0UrZEZHN0RkNHJkd1luVWRJTld1QS8xalZq?= =?utf-8?Q?b0JuRXfEEirk1ybRl+GfmgFXa2mUCcWeLxU+h9e?= X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2957217e-a84a-4bac-c4e8-08d90652f4a2 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2021 12:26:01.3766 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: yybK1rcdJt4TJocDSWQVENVmcRwF70nirxcXYQ8+1kLrVTg/pOnl+rp9R00gGUg3qv6lBlPo8NGqdxD5XP7q5g== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYAPR01MB4782 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 12:26:08 -0000 On 2021-04-23 20:09, Lars Eggert wrote: > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: >> 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) > > Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of confusion > for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational > discussions, because this group will be significantly different from "real" IETF > WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other name may reduce > that possibility for confusion. I think this is a valid point. We haven't discussed this point up to now, but my guess is that to some extent, we were using the term "Working Group" up to now because we want to make sure that people understand that it's very much like a WG. In particular, I think it's very important that people understand that everybody is free to participate. Also in other aspects, for WG participants, the differences look minor to me. For the chairs and the other 'higher-ups', the differences will be bigger, but we should think about the WG participants first. Regards,   Martin. From nobody Fri Apr 23 11:14:48 2021 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 4C4053A190C for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:14:47 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 UEAhfCzEd4nb for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:14:43 -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 02BED3A190A for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FRj9t3Q1Pz6G9wc; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:14:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619201682; bh=0NrUaEG+vnrPtU5xgU4fGtYNP/6qDUGRMpfh8iEitQE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OifMkgcj9MGHz0UdFyena1ndy+7F+h3LE1qjNxwN1HDX3Y1n0357aqbbRbN5H/xTf /YoXVXIMCsWyg0VVlx9lxKB9CwSaP/8dx1OviUVb0oT9f5sXFcL2yUFdOes4p7t0NV u097U9RIJHgXdn95RdttodXNpQS25u/9InzVuGgc= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FRj9s4bx7z6G9Ps; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:14:41 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <4d578945-e316-16cb-1242-2d90cd38fbd3@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:14:40 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH-1 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, 23 Apr 2021 18:14:47 -0000 (tagged informally in case there is any need to reference this. As discussed earlier, to confirm, the paragraph that states that the LLC provides the structure for defining policies for the RFC Series seems to not be grounded in prior discussion, and be wrong. In terms of formal current authority, the authority for this activity comes from the IAB, via the earlier RFCs. In terms of who beyond the WG-to-be should have such authority, or how that WG could be changed, is an interesting one that has not been discussed. Yours, Joel On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the URL in the message, so that we don’t duplicate. > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > > Eliot > > From nobody Fri Apr 23 11:17:03 2021 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 A4FC13A191A for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:17:01 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 WG6EbCEeb_FQ for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:16:57 -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 608603A0EE6 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FRjDT0wrdz6G9t3; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:16:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619201817; bh=0cRFlDe+IKZIC7O3N2stvXZP4ZoMJX9166XVTZu7xxU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QOjByb3TbzN72BEbTIZTIrsL192xnxBC9DROJNDbNs0X9axEapwggyjqLC0VTHjZz +uPYax73E0GAw4i6O9lkTtDDNXWDnCBTKuVk8SlBW2m/4GhZHOnF/9HHXyzndzBTA+ nUvmMhaGInKqLy4H8lJYxbMuVfBYf1GtQnSvvoqc= X-Quarantine-ID: <0-UWukZBwOs7> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FRjDS4Nskz6G9HM; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:16:56 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <8aa3b309-2e1a-828c-74d3-ac2098e71123@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:16:55 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Closing consensus on starting text - issue JMH-2 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, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:02 -0000 As a general matter, the draft does not distinguish among 1) those things which are well-discussed (and except for issues raised in this period should be considered done, although they can be revisited), 2) those things which have been discussed but on which there was not apparent consensus (at least the chairs did not publicly call such>0 3) Those things which were not discussed. The reaction to issue being raised after the time below should be different among those. Particularly if category 3 items are retained in the document. Yours, Joel On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the URL in the message, so that we don’t duplicate. > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > > Eliot > > From nobody Fri Apr 23 11:22:24 2021 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 C92C93A193C for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:22:22 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 DAcnKpM5SLQh for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:22:18 -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 8FC573A1A61 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FRjL02T8Tz6G9H0; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619202104; bh=zX1MN+ejCtBF8CWPdwfIcFV8L8oZWo/tNYLiroDWPRI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Jl8cTU1/0elnclqlzqcME7DbD1xg/j1UHvfcqkyPFnu6W5a20FUwO6JxqYzjgA7tq q6YMJ1NkFLbqjXnY75zp3/A1DOhhP8W+IXuKlHLYzTkuaMW1h4ycg+ha7BCi1LZB2I r+6mB5nHnVLrDBUfEGwjjQrvrpQk48udsWfdpK5w= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FRjKz5357z6G9wX; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:43 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:21:42 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH 3 minor 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, 23 Apr 2021 18:22:23 -0000 The wording in section 5.1.1 on the RFC Series Working Group says that "anyone is welcome to participate in discussions". As a philosophical statement that is what we want. As a practical statement normatively present in our definitional document, it would prevent us from enforcing the anti-harrassment mentioned later, or simply from banning off-topic discussions. I think it needs to be tuned slightly. Maybe anyone is welcome to participate in discussions as long as they participate in an appropriate fashion? (Or is that too wide open to abuse by leadership? Yours, Joel On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the URL in the message, so that we don’t duplicate. > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > > Eliot > > From nobody Fri Apr 23 11:23:55 2021 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 EB45E3A1954 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:23:54 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 isF9M2OL6VTL for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:23:50 -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 0228E3A194C for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FRjNP50VHz6G9vT; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619202229; bh=S4smAcscKq5/o+IX3nU5UmE0fhgSD0cFUgr8yGsuTEE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SS6xsIDjU7MF0gRulsa4EaulLlDbDpshcyxL4/82vydMeDw/DImwNb0aT2XX7MpWA lMn0N+cFz6hDQcUbB81JeDhx1lTaCuc1cetd6vWW2N9kCi7K+gqZ1vCwTQXgl5JTys 8L4Kjfao6I38NUNPYDXvccPl9RcU/YXTfai8pztg= X-Quarantine-ID: <28zLEfjWxdbS> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FRjNP1LDvz6G9H0; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <476a3e86-5258-c298-2a5b-bd32569db8c6@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:23:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Closing consensus on starting text - JMH issue 5 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, 23 Apr 2021 18:23:55 -0000 This issue is not because I think the text is wrong, but because I do not think it was discussed and I do not think it can be treated as closed without discussion. The relvant text is: The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. I can't think of a better answer. But if we are going to do this, I want it explicitly agreed, not slid past quietly. Yours, Joel On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the URL in the message, so that we don’t duplicate. > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > > Eliot > > From nobody Fri Apr 23 11:29:05 2021 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 0D63C3A1971 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:29:05 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 6ejxgC5Jhcpn for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:29:00 -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 BA2713A197C for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FRjVN3ktwz6G9vT; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619202540; bh=CFTikRMoW0VpQSOiIAgl60PBDRPcIf+a88/2K3iLzKQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PkM83hgao0w4t4V10vY0aVwwpYcOd2kVdpPuXnefkA2Q7MTrpM+/ZZ0Qi/j5Dn20x 7MIgQ8sapVcj60y+oXaSc0G7XDfZvN5bYGd6zz2PJFdBvDED0pqVdx8ILyVWYqPnSy UCOMh/9AwRhLE33omcVkseAfg75KCNk5hvYHJcos= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FRjVN051pz6G8qq; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:28:59 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH-4 minor 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, 23 Apr 2021 18:29:05 -0000 Reading the process, I was struck by a minor gap in the process items. specifically in item 4 on issueing the last call. I think the texxt should include that the WG Chairs consider the proposal to be sufficiently developed and refined. We sometimes have situations where there is rough consensus for something, but it really needs a little more work before it is sent out. Obviously, we do not want to require perfection. But we do want to give the chairs room to say "this needs more work". Yours, Joel On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > All, > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include the URL in the message, so that we don’t duplicate. > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > > Eliot > > From nobody Fri Apr 23 14:13:37 2021 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 A5D863A0D05 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 J-bCXb21lAJV for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 CD3B33A0D02 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id f29so35998638pgm.8 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:32 -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=Oq2+MOrCrH+sv8ZU8riLNe9vyn3wXRqChLjXeDypIAM=; b=BMmxlhkjzXvolVDdFqFQi6xUppGLmfkidyE7u6a8i0G51wOboj257he4UNgCC+VRPc o5LCpLagZXEB9/MJNie/BhtKIJUEpsuLsDoxMy1C781fkuvZkIkUf5ZJc2H6BuE5c7QR 9aWMAuN7BUllrtbQn4pWzPomVJPnlUw4UzdF1g82jXVfJFUEtBL09fe9U5FnWzjsf2UE KGg0hpnw4xXnQxr4gqZ03iph6EwBbIkT10iem9aHINrrohCBJ+8P61CT6s94vcmdJzXu sFglTPDhC8fseMwTadcdi/O2Ig3YG8/9ptfYzD3iXvu1O6ec8UX3rgIE1GAN3uGVTAzV E12A== 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=Oq2+MOrCrH+sv8ZU8riLNe9vyn3wXRqChLjXeDypIAM=; b=ZynUAiymkNFbLvKqrExVG9taR9SVd/xmW0zzGzJVC4YaWqbpgsXT7wC/m9Zp6mu6O3 dg0gXDPz+JlSo9pX7hkHWXaJWaXUyc/MlczD7MsuP5GdfHUA1HxAWTNYnhIv9HtH/mAz qFeI8g0jhj8TNJDZg+Ra9driqvjKWaUsBfu2dRN+VOnHb1EOfTw2aCfU8Xa+LKX6yuMc 6iOW9So0ER95Eu7OIFraXPyWJtG3BYWMIJCdyAEW2YBpVFkKkpVJiQX11tglbTo23ATK 7sQRKyXbJDUV3ewV0NqTvubzT36L9LbZG6GVvyN3OTudk2JCZGnNmkFkApD5HDpCqHCB aHpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328xJSev97+507HPJQx846FlCEOelZ/LpA/SsOKjB0iL+HZTcDE Oar7Dg5CfRTU14xOwWtsmtbIPFgiHF1+bw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKls0U/I9cVhkQEbkqAr/KieZ3ASguSFbSSwpngw4qsayU/i1WWb0Ho6EUNt5rbq584UvLvg== X-Received: by 2002:a62:9283:0:b029:25d:4039:cac1 with SMTP id o125-20020a6292830000b029025d4039cac1mr5694226pfd.77.1619212409712; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u12sm9117553pji.45.2021.04.23.14.13.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:13:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Lars Eggert , Peter Saint-Andre Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:13:26 +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: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 23 Apr 2021 21:13:36 -0000 Lars, On one point: > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: >> 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) > > Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of confusion > for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational > discussions, because this group will be significantly different from "real" IETF > WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other name may reduce > that possibility for confusion. However, I think we should still call it a WG, precisely to emphasise that it broadly speaking operates according to RFC2418 with a similar notion of rough consensus. Yes, there will be occasional confusion and a need to repeat that it isn't an *IETF* WG. I think that's a price worth paying. Of course we can qualify the name with "Policy" or "Strategy". But please don't remove "WG". Earlier I proposed "RFC Series Advisory WG". I still like that. Regards Brian From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:03:56 2021 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 0D11C3A0EEF for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Q8v9t_nkARRj for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:50 -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 D59E13A0EED for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3399; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619420630; x=1620630230; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=p5hkQerhpviFqVUndmsvJ4MQVnZeTq3oMP0jvh8wLnI=; b=SlNW6UjzYTAOdRA33A+mTPMJDMdjLrVexLaLbx4CT9zHd4CTlBHlmSZ2 QCJZxK+2QCCnNb8hUcjk1ySWC368n68Jd765xBWZOQZiZogIzYVAijKJN qQ4edb2s0t/gFzfdZJV0Fy9EhTFLaXtWur6vRkTtjOUuEvhllQ3J9RCa6 E=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AJAACbZIZglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBQAQBAQELAYEiglUBJxIxjUeIbYd+jE6GJIF8BAcBAQEKAwEBNAQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YRQAoF6JjYHDgIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFXYZEA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQIBeQULCwQBEy5XBhOCcQGCZiGocHiBNIEBhFiEcBCBOgGBUoUvhlVDg?= =?us-ascii?q?guBOgwQgjAvPogPgisEgU94PYEdoD2LKZFngxiDQYFGmBQEIZRAkFCGT4hvp?= =?us-ascii?q?TABhAUCBAYFAhaBWwsmgVszGggbFWUBgj4+EhkOjjiONj8DLzgCBgoBAQMJj?= =?us-ascii?q?RABAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:fJKy2aNq2gchH8BcTkOjsMiAIKoaSvp033AA3SlKOH9oW+afkN 2jm+le6A/shF8qNE0ItNicNMC7IE/02oVy5eAqV4uKfA6jg2ewKZEn0I2K+V3dMgnz7PRU26 slU6UWMrDNJHx7icq/3wWiCdYnx7C8n5yAvuvVw3dzQQwCUcgJhDtRMQqVHlZ7QwNLH/MCZf +hz/BarDmtc2l/VKqGL0QCNtKzxeHjpdbDaR4CCwVP0njrsRqYrJjnDhOfwhASFxRIzLtKyx miryXJooO+rvq81hjQk1X20q0Tst7gxtxfbfb87fQoFg== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35384842" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 07:03:47 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q73kUl019656 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:03:47 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B6A1CB9-4623-4708-A4AB-EC807069BAD8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:42:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4d578945-e316-16cb-1242-2d90cd38fbd3@joelhalpern.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <4d578945-e316-16cb-1242-2d90cd38fbd3@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH-1 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:03:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6B6A1CB9-4623-4708-A4AB-EC807069BAD8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E50054D-4126-4B4C-83E8-63BC1EE18624" --Apple-Mail=_8E50054D-4126-4B4C-83E8-63BC1EE18624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 43. > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:14, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > As discussed earlier, to confirm, the paragraph that states that the = LLC provides the structure for defining policies for the RFC Series = seems to not be grounded in prior discussion, and be wrong. In terms of = formal current authority, the authority for this activity comes from the = IAB, via the earlier RFCs. In terms of who beyond the WG-to-be should = have such authority, or how that WG could be changed, is an interesting = one that has not been discussed. --Apple-Mail=_8E50054D-4126-4B4C-83E8-63BC1EE18624 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Issue= 43.

    On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:14, Joel M. Halpern = <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

    As discussed earlier, to confirm, the paragraph that states = that the LLC provides the structure for defining policies for the RFC = Series seems to not be grounded in prior discussion, and be wrong. =  In terms of formal current authority, the authority for this = activity comes from the IAB, via the earlier RFCs.  In terms of who = beyond the WG-to-be should have such authority, or how that WG could be = changed, is an interesting one that has not been = discussed.

    = --Apple-Mail=_8E50054D-4126-4B4C-83E8-63BC1EE18624-- --Apple-Mail=_6B6A1CB9-4623-4708-A4AB-EC807069BAD8 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGYMQACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejPzFQgAsXs/jbt/iXIxf+OMaz9BP2Fk84obqy/S3MkCx9Zhjiskd9h1SUHo/YSG xq7lN6Fmm34T+eqb5NWVbyXVNydtOq8pNkkjxga9rd+ym0PtFzSXjKZzNV5exARX VZWHkhbikxIIllB9YDoajyDiB2FxhcX4wcQV7ZU9Kl1yyEm7kERTXghA82QHlmzr nEK5Ax+ow1xJfeShpY0nAASvBZ9qANODhkQcDTwDZH8y0TZmmmQLUTPhDZ7WwsLV x7qygDSw1wwvw5kdynA8fmyBHTyExmCCQEg/Eq6opcxQdLSe3+QH1eJIjEIcZ1Wm 1St6fFbRKmoLfRPQ89gC7x7FRUgKoA== =cgWI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6B6A1CB9-4623-4708-A4AB-EC807069BAD8-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:04:01 2021 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 B71713A0EEF for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_NONE=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 uqRRn0fTQCH4 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:51 -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 A06EA3A0EEE for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:03:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3027; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619420630; x=1620630230; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=3G0DspMQOodvF90Q+I7fDzPoBIpZ7oCAk2B/sgLi70c=; b=NklTQfqhkZD3mGgVtS5cJAMJwQh7MZY6ZrhmeVSali7Q6wzOWCmi8YwC AnG8115kAZS1U0/JE86sUfZgJCw7RnI1fjFB78iUOFb98u/qM9XqjwUzd xCcP9YRanOCrirGkTzXyI5nq1C1I/83BncXkoY/4TwI059Y4kVDwRXweZ c=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AJAACbZIZglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYIABAEBAQsBg3cBJxIxhEOJBIhqA5pwgXwEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBhFACg?= =?us-ascii?q?XomNgcOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVdhkQBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?gEjVgULCxgqAgJXBhOCcQGCZiGocHqBMoEBhFiEcBCBOgGBUowEQ4ILgToME?= =?us-ascii?q?IIwLz6HWTaCKwSCSGIEcwJEKzuSCI0JnRCDGINBgUaYFAQhg1GLBYVqkFCGT?= =?us-ascii?q?4hvpTABhAUCBAYFAhaBWwUsgVszGggbFTsqAYI+PhIZDlaNVQ0Jji0/Ay84A?= =?us-ascii?q?gYBCQEBAwmNEAEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:IkovRqlMkFsexCr9inwdVo9hVrzpDfKu3DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwvc rGpoV56TbfjjENVHY83e2RIaXoex/h3LN8/IV5B9afdSb8vm/AFutfxKvkhwbtAijvstNavJ 0BT4FbBMfrBVZ3yeb2iTPUL/8FwN2KtJ+lnv3fyXAFd25XQppt5Qt4FQqXe3ceLGJ7LKE0G5 aG6s1MqyDIQwVzUu2AGnIHU+LfzuekqLvaZ3c9dnwawTjLqTup7bLgeiLouis2Yndo3aoo93 TDnkjf4Kiu2svLrCP05iv084lcnsfnx594IPG0zuIRKjnql2+TFeNcZ4E= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35384843" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 07:03:47 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q73kUm019656 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:03:47 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <72CC7EC8-33B4-4746-B3CE-1C6B51ED5B26@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_960186E4-EAC6-4484-9FD1-40EFE0BB750B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:46:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8aa3b309-2e1a-828c-74d3-ac2098e71123@joelhalpern.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <8aa3b309-2e1a-828c-74d3-ac2098e71123@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text - issue JMH-2 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:03:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_960186E4-EAC6-4484-9FD1-40EFE0BB750B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Joel, I think the best way to handle the point you are raising is to consider = the context of each issue as you describe below. I have asked Peter to = mark text that he knows has an issue open on it with the issue #. Eliot > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:16, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > As a general matter, the draft does not distinguish among > 1) those things which are well-discussed (and except for issues raised = in this period should be considered done, although they can be = revisited), > 2) those things which have been discussed but on which there was not = apparent consensus (at least the chairs did not publicly call such>0 > 3) Those things which were not discussed. >=20 > The reaction to issue being raised after the time below should be = different among those. Particularly if category 3 items are retained in = the document. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> All, >> The chairs have not received any significant objections to the = starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. = As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those = issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then = directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on = this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for = discussion. >> We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this = posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. = Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. >> To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of = the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include = the URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. >> The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting = which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week = consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? >> Eliot --Apple-Mail=_960186E4-EAC6-4484-9FD1-40EFE0BB750B 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGYaoACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMRxAf/T1/kUGfKGGpTn2C2WwNXIMLVk1MLZGA3Fbr1m4VvKlFRNhlloS2j1U/Q Dtg6uLSE/TNuo3QLCGUR3iGDYMAI80hYIif+pl8iJ8ilXfPTL3TMr3pN4WRDB+9G do3eNXUnD/nd91LlNkm85El7MoIuikyYBPdOgP7R2G7nPMo3Qo/Phgn+FyTYxk3g bT6gue/C5fGf98Lw3OgXUeMpNNsnkNhc4xg3KrPqny1CPiH+SzL13hyg6+SqYadG JKsRHWYTdbDQr7twr+UIWrh9AUpAlYFIM6ndsYrE6xxN9lw8jYwlp5LGNfv9vAjD 0CKqEDcebetXADXbqZlpEoAoZGUDxQ== =+t4t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_960186E4-EAC6-4484-9FD1-40EFE0BB750B-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:06:33 2021 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 400CE3A0F41 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 RMDiJZ8qP-cs for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:06:27 -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 1AF253A0F3D for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:06:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2827; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619420787; x=1620630387; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=7ZBmp/fwH9zo9rRCv23rWNrdWiv+10q8BHVRMXUwyy8=; b=VifbMDZawGkihuuDMgXFL3g/HlVNzfmnP+Bf2BCvVudoZN737+GUcaoM 3Tb8yXqmZvrF1jQ3Pp2uFfCBjNeMPdscJUwuhP3OkdCS6JHEiFSErqdHE hvOxN3WPwLO0uYnHFoDMY7je4k6jia+US7haoQ5Oqlg1rVZxZz1nVN3H+ M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ACAQAxZoZg/xbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYISg3gBJxIxhEOJBIhpA5xsBAcBAQEKAwEBNAQBAYRQAoF6JjgTAgMBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEcROFXYZEAQEBAQIBI1YFCwsYKgICVwYTgnEBg?= =?us-ascii?q?mYhqHB6gTKBAYRYhHAQgTqBU4wEQ4ILgTocgjAvPodZNoIrBIJIYncCRCsxC?= =?us-ascii?q?p8RiymRZ4MYg0GBRpgUBCGDUYsFhWqQUIZPiG+lMAGEBQIEBgUCFoFrI4FZM?= =?us-ascii?q?xoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ5WnBg/Ay84AgYBCQEBAwmNEAEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:aqo8H6OAxoT/HcBcTkOjsMiAIKoaSvp033AA3SlKOH9oW+afkN 2jm+le6A/shF8qNE0ItNicNMC7IE/02oVy5eAqV4uKfA6jg2ewKZEn0I2K+V3dMgnz7PRU26 slU6UWMrDNJHx7icq/3wWiCdYnx7C8n5yAvuvVw3dzQQwCUcgJhDtRMQqVHlZ7QwNLH/MCZf +hz/BarDmtc2l/VKqGL0QCNtKzxeHjpdbDaR4CCwVP0njrsRqYrJjnDhOfwhASFxRIzLtKyx miryXJooO+rvq81hjQk1X20q0Tst7gxtxfbfb87fQoFg== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33011886" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 07:06:22 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q76Mo0005215 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:06:22 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <85A4DF79-B75E-4FB8-9EB5-E631FD2FFACA@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_092EF867-2234-421A-B9F1-20C4ACCA2441"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:06:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH 3 minor 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:06:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_092EF867-2234-421A-B9F1-20C4ACCA2441 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Issue 44. > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:21, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > The wording in section 5.1.1 on the RFC Series Working Group says that = "anyone is welcome to participate in discussions". As a philosophical = statement that is what we want. As a practical statement normatively = present in our definitional document, it would prevent us from enforcing = the anti-harrassment mentioned later, or simply from banning off-topic = discussions. I think it needs to be tuned slightly. >=20 > Maybe anyone is welcome to participate in discussions as long as they = participate in an appropriate fashion? (Or is that too wide open to = abuse by leadership? >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> All, >> The chairs have not received any significant objections to the = starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. = As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those = issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then = directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on = this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for = discussion. >> We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this = posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. = Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. >> To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of = the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include = the URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. >> The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting = which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week = consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? >> Eliot --Apple-Mail=_092EF867-2234-421A-B9F1-20C4ACCA2441 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGZm0ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOkRwf/QR71tWMo7JbpbANyupElzRhS/m7R8qt20nyr7HYBJ6UxIy6zMD75Hi+E Nuron764pX/V3DfAz/OLRE+380mhBokdmgaRFTqM+bXhquPU+MiC+z5RzXTj8DQF fxY99oX0hitvGm1sqMWXkUxNgM4OObCdBeiyhlY0/oT5vpIz4/QU652JKOgiVo1b JtPxqTQI9M6FiTkH9ikPSxkdpo2Zy9GVCjsTqxSAkKJdt0zySeoXmlZuN/Xjz61/ +ikw8PhSHEMRM9rTTdwqG4qZcdVqwaaYi+DzfNSRRPWcqLyOHpIFi0IQq7gtchw6 OKmj7rRh4B6YssYVI58Ui6MJLRj3Rw== =snee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_092EF867-2234-421A-B9F1-20C4ACCA2441-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:07:12 2021 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 8A7C53A0F46 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:07:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 J1ZSNe43TNXU for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:07:06 -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 425F53A0F44 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:07:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2835; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619420826; x=1620630426; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=Q6y1CPh+e0IogBjiDCR8zbgLgHSMSzRSqcd8NxcVU8c=; b=Ln9+H1StHua+IJMhzghoHcwVHb8Z+JppDJV/aIuPIRcwpcQPQ5RB6eDq AaWw3RNvjzfPKhXPSIqb/0ZnFJHl454EgAjauqHPiNsXnAxQaxsAXLBKi BcqOOcQTzmFbXCryJ0ICIMlaYE7tXhTilonwjZuCdktNqLNXsM8vyN6aD 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BgAAAxZoZg/xbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBghKDIlYBJxIxhEOJBIhpA5xsBAcBAQEKAwEBHQsMBAEBhFACg?= =?us-ascii?q?XomOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgRxE4VQDYZEAQEBAQIBAQEhSwsFC?= =?us-ascii?q?wsYKgICJzAGE4JxAYJmIQ+oYXqBMoEBhFiEcAoGgToBgVKMBEOCC4ETJxyCM?= =?us-ascii?q?C8+gmABhHg2gisEgkgNgSwgAjkLKzsYnnmdEIMYg0GBRpgUBCGDUYsFhWqQU?= =?us-ascii?q?IZPiG+lMAGEBQIEBgUCFoFrI4FZMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ5WjVUWiGKFSz8DL?= =?us-ascii?q?zgCBgEJAQEDCY0QAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:df4cOarx2XzgKtyUwCn92F4aV5qpeYIsi2QD101hICF9WMbwrb HMoN0w0xjohDENHEwxgNzoAsW9aF7V6JId2+gsFJi4Wg2OggGVBaFkqbDv2jjxXxD5n9Q86Y 5Ff7JlANP9SXh25PyW3CCdE9IthOaK67qpg+C29RhQZDpnYa1h8At1YzzzeiZLbTJLCpYjGJ 2X6tAvnUvERV0scs+5CnMZNtKsm/T3kvvdEHw7Li9izAGPiD+ygYSKdySw71M5Ty5Fx6sk/C zjlQH0j5/T1c2T+1v7y3LZ6YhQlZ/a7uZ7QOaIisQTN1zX+2GVWLg= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33011898" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 07:07:02 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q76Mo1005215 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:07:01 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <4B79CF27-E7A3-4CAF-B296-F5C1D8A8AF07@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4920D7C3-AB39-452B-AF75-7E0C513C352C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:07:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <476a3e86-5258-c298-2a5b-bd32569db8c6@joelhalpern.com> Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <476a3e86-5258-c298-2a5b-bd32569db8c6@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text - JMH issue 5 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:07:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4920D7C3-AB39-452B-AF75-7E0C513C352C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mirja opened an issue on this for these reasons. > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:23, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > This issue is not because I think the text is wrong, but because I do = not think it was discussed and I do not think it can be treated as = closed without discussion. The relvant text is: >=20 > The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each = appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. >=20 > I can't think of a better answer. But if we are going to do this, I = want it explicitly agreed, not slid past quietly. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 >=20 > On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> All, >> The chairs have not received any significant objections to the = starting point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. = As discussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those = issues be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then = directly afterwards on this list. All discussion should take place on = this list. The group has not agreed to use of Github issues for = discussion. >> We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this = posting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. = Exactly how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. >> To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of = the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include = the URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. >> The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting = which we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week = consensus check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? >> Eliot >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_4920D7C3-AB39-452B-AF75-7E0C513C352C 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGZpUACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejO5Jwf+McysYeko46QkDFMEQLoQQ5/2ShFt38SlyxW+H0lNKQAgxFfK82fdjSmi zyH3o65OD1OPmGM/7Za7FLvj0lDS98+O1wza7QnjF6ztZr1yb9uDPeEyvs8H4cpT Vt2/RqYlPE4RRKzma4t0L8os5C/CWRdta9k1seGs3DErvzyIBgGEvOp9ZBsNu7KD 5kwAbICb8f/poJmE8az4j9ZQ2qKWISUWnBE+tGuWm4xMwvtJ+5iDLDTeSCT5+w+N wX1kc41R6AkbmBKPmi65X9WKLkdAoayja2w8K/JXGuf+2DjVdGUGEiaLLu8OoKg5 qG3zVXCga9zImgG7aE6hfidIJGnI2Q== =pjDR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4920D7C3-AB39-452B-AF75-7E0C513C352C-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:08:42 2021 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 846113A0FCA for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable 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 ahCfMDuxXJd0 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:08:35 -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 C08653A0FC0 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3491; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619420914; x=1620630514; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=WY/x9Rdk8pxlAgSBgNkYA8jlV37//ZNQgG2fLZeFEHA=; b=mkNtWVEo5TVwnnUhl4iLipJquqgrsWHPcXtSHmvXHGt+t+FjhuUuxXE6 alAe18fgEdR7k40IEB7T35UTp9so9vsJIPnled6XUBWxe0PrufV3xteok zOynlV4YP17DVQ712g6G7e/QgOs8a6dG/bVfKZk7e79qh0w1tFocXNkcK Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAADFZYZglxbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIFAAwEBAQELAYEiglUBJxIxjUeIbYd+jE6GJIF8BAcBAQEKA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBNAQBAYRQAoF6JjYHDgIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?WiFXYZEAQEBAQIBeQULCwQBEy5XBhOCcQGCZiGocHiBNIEBhFiEcBCBOgGBU?= =?us-ascii?q?oUvhlVDgguBOgwQgjAvPogPgisEhCGBLDZynWmLKZFngxiDQYFGmBQEIZRAk?= =?us-ascii?q?FCGT4hvpTABhAUCBAYFAhaBWwQtgVszGggbFWUBgj4+EhkOjjiONj8DLzgCB?= =?us-ascii?q?goBAQMJjRABAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:B397SquRClFTvjyQFAI5uwIK7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35384974" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 07:08:32 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q78WAJ028836 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:08:32 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <96939FD7-8747-4293-9CCD-55790E88E050@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E3BB84FF-D305-4F72-ABD5-7D815B5B7D44"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:08:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Closing consensus on starting text - Issue JMH-4 minor 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:08:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E3BB84FF-D305-4F72-ABD5-7D815B5B7D44 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B0E66898-1613-4EA3-9987-CDBEDD5BF5D3" --Apple-Mail=_B0E66898-1613-4EA3-9987-CDBEDD5BF5D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 45. > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:28, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > Reading the process, I was struck by a minor gap in the process items. = specifically in item 4 on issueing the last call. I think the texxt = should include that the WG Chairs consider the proposal to be = sufficiently developed and refined. We sometimes have situations where = there is rough consensus for something, but it really needs a little = more work before it is sent out. Obviously, we do not want to require = perfection. But we do want to give the chairs room to say "this needs = more work". --Apple-Mail=_B0E66898-1613-4EA3-9987-CDBEDD5BF5D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Issue= 45.

    On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:28, Joel M. Halpern = <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

    Reading the process, I was struck by a minor gap in the = process items.  specifically in item 4 on issueing the last call. =  I think the texxt should include that the WG Chairs consider the = proposal to be sufficiently developed and refined.  We sometimes = have situations where there is rough consensus for something, but it = really needs a little more work before it is sent out.  Obviously, = we do not want to require perfection. But we do want to give the chairs = room to say "this needs more work".

    = --Apple-Mail=_B0E66898-1613-4EA3-9987-CDBEDD5BF5D3-- --Apple-Mail=_E3BB84FF-D305-4F72-ABD5-7D815B5B7D44 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGZu8ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejP1DAgA0oYT+i1FqOGzg5QoUWUn5MTmi37GKxIsfZQbM7pNwPN/bF9x9V7VTRml JmLgKYj1MR2JXxducPzp7eUXtA77JebFpYycYWUgxUh4b0Nd4YQTBAivb8IaIK1V SygWsKa6fKRZa6ITCgqabQgpjHLWThfwsIjDgUiMSCKLS+9x6Z7hRYGTMz+4qERN YrjfhwE7BPXPs4pNUKhNHUv4uhbK6Q6eemcnMUbwWpN2RbCftJt97DzN6m/D4h+X zuJ6nBC/iWug1ODmV5BgDzY+8UjfYI3SU/gfpy+5ET72IV9iplJgMaAmE2VSd/ek K02VWvmguLBpVO/kw+m0BWuDl5jSKQ== =se+s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E3BB84FF-D305-4F72-ABD5-7D815B5B7D44-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 00:10:35 2021 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 B6FA43A0FD9 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 GMltVOpXVp-v for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:10:29 -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 59B323A0FD8 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:10:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4117; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619421029; x=1620630629; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=PnOHGPyjTpIpaZW72KzCUb1H3aox9dKQ7CUmcx0Pez4=; b=L7yqV0W6wYZzyN/VpvRBW0fyJ2SkO/DwAuE4QwlagOq2DDHc8HwKIi3X JmxrTJQDBo8L5ljKRqw5LA6nIOczxriuc8snk4TD9ACBw2SS2Ojt0om6U tKsCj3eDran/THmFCnLXCwFifYw+T/ZDVZiroik7kw6cVZcDStUFkeZYd U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BgAAAxZoZg/xbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBghKBfIEmVgEnEjGEQ4kEiGkDmwSBaAQHAQEBCgMBASgMBAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?FACgXomOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgRxE4VQDYZEAQEBAQIBHQZJC?= =?us-ascii?q?gMFCwsYKgICVwYTFIJdAYJmIQ+oYXqBMoEBg1NBRIRwCgaBOgGBUowEQ4ILg?= =?us-ascii?q?RMnDBCCXz6CYAIDgUODMTaCKwSBVIEgAg4mBBs4IAKBKo0OhHsKHYs4gSmdE?= =?us-ascii?q?IMYg0GBRoRqjHWGNQQhg1GQby2QI6Efk08BhAUCBAYFAhaBayOBWTMaCBsVZ?= =?us-ascii?q?QGCPj4SGQ6PQwEIh1eFSz8DLzgCBgEJAQEDCYwyXgEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:2eCLHKCDrdhAuavlHeku55DYdL4zR+YMi2QD/UoZc203TuWzkc eykPMHkSLlkTp5Yh0dsP2JJaXoexLh3LFv5415B92fdSng/FClNYRzqbblqgeBJwTb+vRG3a ltN4hyYeecMXFfjcL3pDa1CMwhxt7vys+VrNzTxXtsUg1mApsIh2xEIz2WHUFsSA5NCYBRLu v42uN8uzGidX4LB/7UOlA5WYH41r/2vaOjRRYHAhI9gTP+6Q+A2frdDwWS2AsYXndpx7ovmF K19TDR1+GEr+yxzAPa2ivoy6lu3PHlytdFGaW3+68oFgk= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33012060" 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; 26 Apr 2021 07:10:27 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q7AQnI029439 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:10:27 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FCFE472C-895C-4F45-B7D9-B71D0C2100DA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:10:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre , rfced-future@iab.org To: Lars Eggert References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 26 Apr 2021 07:10:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FCFE472C-895C-4F45-B7D9-B71D0C2100DA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Lars, I=E2=80=99ve opened Issue 46 for your comments in bulk. In as much as = anything needs to be broken out into separate issues, we can do that as = we discuss this issue. Eliot > On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert wrote: >=20 > Signed PGP part > Hi, >=20 > On 2021-4-5, at 22:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ >=20 > I gave this a quick read, below are some initial thoughts. >=20 > Thanks, > Lars >=20 > Section 4, paragraph 2, comment: >> Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC = Production >> Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force = or >> future policies defined as specified in the next section of this >> document. >=20 > I'm not quite sure what "Continuing publication" is meant to express - = can > "continuing" be removed, or else, what does it signify? (Or was the = intent to > say "Publication ... shall continue to be handled"?) >=20 > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: >> 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) >=20 > Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of = confusion > for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational > discussions, because this group will be significantly different from = "real" IETF > WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other = name may reduce > that possibility for confusion. >=20 > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 2, comment: >> The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each >> appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. >=20 > I can understand why each separately appoints one chair, but why would = each then > continue to oversee only the one chair they appointed? >=20 > Section 5.1.2, paragraph 4, comment: >> The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows: >=20 > Are there members other than voting members on the RSAB? If not, just = call them > members? If yes, who are they? >=20 > Section 5.1.2, paragraph 7, comment: > Is there an intention for the RSAB to gain additional (voting) members > if new RFC streams are created in the future? >=20 > Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: >> 1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the = RSWG. >> Again, all RSAB members MUST participate. >=20 > This is an unenforceable MUST. >=20 > Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: >> 2. If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is >> approved. Again, if substantial changes have been made, an >> additional call for community input should be made. >=20 > It's not quite clear what "addressed" means. It would be clearer to = say "A > proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved." >=20 > Section 6.1, paragraph 2, comment: >> process in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for >> one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five >> years. >=20 > It will IMO be difficult to hire the desired senior professional on a = one-year > contract. >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_FCFE472C-895C-4F45-B7D9-B71D0C2100DA 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGZ2IACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOCLwgAmE1tnLj3sXRn1PtcYHLq2DkvgV7uY4hBYDT3QleQ4IfIjSnDX8Y9XF4C S/JLRA120hMIzAtCTHUJutIQYcMlbdUV7rKCQ99PfZgGOEG7jPN4xfjLRgch7nzF rgZ+3yAnj9rofhYE4MMl1MrDDJ94xTR9lbco3Yhv3Sby4ZwD3X6Me9m6TH1EF7+h 9x/8t2tx4pM0cCWS/C8gn8CpwVw1G53HZDK92XUY/BYTjTSeULuEv0wTexdZGrGU wI4GnM6p2jLvCEjsvkjtR8lQJYhvXA+4BC4orrIS382Yibl1h7e2+buUaKm6oZHh SicQAWR7rTgDaCUOWCamUUp9ozOGpA== =JR3Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_FCFE472C-895C-4F45-B7D9-B71D0C2100DA-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 01:01:28 2021 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 2FDB23A1214 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Gqh-okYxW8Dg for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:01:22 -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 DB6863A1211 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10442; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619424082; x=1620633682; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=pKjO+JprRTBD/s02p8E9+zL78qvtYbFjC9t0OK7gFXc=; b=N6ssqeyYZqk/AMJ78mvhRI6U+0Uy/020FJ6CjG+X5zPYB5HEH0ZVw05s g/MNDn9X/fL3mKwF6Aj/mJq3LxtSPjlDT/Qfrf2PHU9Kr7bXWjSFdbeSl g8diaZqKETzEnM4TttuLFx1+AQItYv7XD0tikwYAPaRsk4W2ea2yut/b9 k=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AiAAAicoZglxbLJq1QChoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQESA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQICAQEBAYISgyJWAScSMYRDiQSIagOPLY0/BAcBAQEKAwEBHQsMBAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?FACgXomOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohVANhkQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDAQEBIUkCCwULCxgqAgInMAYTFIJdAYJmIQ+ob3qBMoEBhFiEbgoGgToBg?= =?us-ascii?q?VKMBEOCC4ETJwwQgl8+gmABgRgcg0Q2gisEgUsJEVsHATwmAQMdBRkIECACO?= =?us-ascii?q?SoMOw0kFQMWkSkBjQibfIEUgxiDQYFGjA2FV4YwBCGDUYsFhWotkCOXOZxWG?= =?us-ascii?q?ANEAYQFAgQGBQIWgWshgVszGggbFTsqAYI+PhIZDo44iGuFSz8DLzgCBgEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDCY0QAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:T8ZOKa13QQlAwcKnhlTsmQqjBDAkLtp033Aq2lEZdDV+eKWj5q OTtd4c0gL5jytUZWE4lbm7VJWobHvA+fdOgLU5EqylWGDd0leADIYn1of6xi2lJiuWzI5g/I NtabJ3BtG1LVUSt6vHyS25F9pl/9Wd6qCvgo7loEtFdg1hZ6F+4woRMG/yeXFefwVICYE0E5 CR/KN81l+dUE4KZce2DGRtZYb+juDM/aiWAyIuNloC4AmKgSjA0s+fLzGomjEDTjhI3bAutU /CngCR3NTEj9iLjjnBymTU85Na3OHE9+IGLsmNhs8JQw+c7TqVWA== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,251,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35448012" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Apr 2021 08:01:19 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.140] ([10.61.144.140]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13Q81Ivq020970 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:01:19 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <59A4E07E-0B89-4C07-8352-CF4E288F2C25@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_67E723B3-5AE0-4721-B6A8-C56B171D8EE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:44:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <057701d736c5$06987170$13c95450$@olddog.co.uk> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Adrian Farrel References: <057701d736c5$06987170$13c95450$@olddog.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.140, [10.61.144.140] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 26 Apr 2021 08:01:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_67E723B3-5AE0-4721-B6A8-C56B171D8EE8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Opened as one issue (42) for now. We can split out things people = don=E2=80=99t agree on as we go on. > On 21 Apr 2021, at 17:43, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I have a number of relatively painless comments on the current (i.e., > -00) version of draft-saintandre-rfced-model. >=20 > Feel free to open issues or handle these comments in any way you think > appropriate. >=20 > Best, > Adrian >=20 > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > Abstract >=20 > I think that the Abstract is too minimalist. The single sentence is a > fine thing to say, but the Abstract should contain some text similar = to > that in 8728. >=20 > The Abstract should also include a statement of obsoleting 8728. So, > something like... >=20 > Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series are published on > behalf of the IETF, the IAB, the IRTF, and the Independent > Submissions Editor. In order to provide a sustainable basis for > continued publication of the RFC series, this document describes > Version 3 of the RFC Editor model, which divides the responsibilities > for the RFC series among four primary functions: the IETF > Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), > the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB), and the RFC Publication Center > (RPC). >=20 > This document reflects the experience gained with versions 1 > and 2 of the RFC Editor Model documented in RFC 5620 and RFC 8728, > and obsoletes RFC 8728. >=20 > --- >=20 > Introduction >=20 > I feel that the Introduction is a bit thin. While we probably don't = need > a whole lot of text, some background about the series and the rfc = editor > function is probably helpful. We can lean a lot on RFC 8729. We should > also describe the manner of obsoleting RFC 8728 (i.e., the changes). >=20 > Something like... >=20 > Documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) series have been > continually published since 1969 [RFC8700]. The RFC series is > described in [RFC8729]. RFC 8729 uses the term "RFC Editor > function" or "RFC Editor" to identify the collective set of > responsibilities for publishing documents in the RFC series. >=20 > The processes and organizational models for publication of these > documents have changed significantly over the years. Most recently, > in 2009, [RFC5620] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 1), and in > 2012 [RFC6635] defined the RFC Editor Model (Version 2), since > modified slightly in 2020 by [RFC8728]. >=20 > In order to provide a sustainable basis for continued publication of > the RFC series, this document describes Version 3 of the RFC Editor > model, which divides the responsibilities for the RFC series among > four primary functions: the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the > RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), the RFC Series Approval Board > (RSAB), and the RFC Publication Center (RPC). This revised model > remains consistent with RFC 8729. >=20 > This document obsoletes RFC 8728 by making a full update to the RFC > Editor model, changing the responsibilities of existing bodies and > functions, and introducing new functions. Specific changes from the > version 2 RFC Editor Model are presented in Section 7. >=20 > --- >=20 > There are two cases of 2119 "MUST" in the document. I don't understand > why those cases are specifically called out for special treatment when > other "must" and "should" remain in lower case. I would suggest moving > everything to lower case and removing Section 2. >=20 > --- >=20 > Section 3 has >=20 > The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies > regarding the RFC series. This document specifies such a structure > through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its > policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). >=20 > Well, either this document defines the structure (which is subject to > community consensus) or the LLC defines the structure. Maybe, >=20 > The IETF LLC shall also facilitate and support a structure, specified > in this document, for defining policies regarding the RFC series. > That structure is based on a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), > which shall submit its policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval > Board (RSAB). >=20 > --- >=20 > Section 4 >=20 > Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC Production > Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force or > future policies defined as specified in the next section of this > document. >=20 > I stumbled over "policies defied as specified...". I think you mean > "policies defined following the process specified...". >=20 > --- >=20 > Section 4 >=20 > Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC > can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. If the IETF LLC > opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns can be raised with > the IETF LLC. >=20 > I'm unclear whether this is intended to be a duplication of concern to > be raised with the LLC, or to be raised with the delegated body. So it > should be either: >=20 > Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC > can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. Even if the IETF > LLC opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns should be > raised with the IETF LLC. >=20 > or: >=20 > Community members who have concerns about the performance of the RPC > can request that the IETF LLC look into the matter. If the IETF LLC > opts to delegate the oversight function, concerns should be raised > with the delegee, but can also be raised with the IETF LLC. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.1 >=20 > subject to intellectual property policies > which must be consistent with those of the IETF [RFC8179] >=20 > Perhaps this should reference by BCP number (BCP79). Additionally, > shouldn't we also mention BCP78 at the same time. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.1 >=20 > The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each > appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. >=20 > I am OK with this very open process, but I wanted to check that the > group is content to leave it entirely up to each of those two people = how > they make the appointment. Additional constraints might include: > - nominations period > - open feedback period > - length of term > - number of terms >=20 > This text might usefully include a reference to 8730. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.1 >=20 > Members of the > RSAB are also expected to participate actively in the RSWG so that > they are fully aware of proposals early in the policy definition > process. >=20 > I believe it was stronger than this. In particular, the discussion > seemed to imply that the intention was that all issues that the RSAB > members might have would be raised during normal RSWG discussions and > not be "late surprises" in the RSAB review period. Thus... >=20 > Members of the > RSAB are expected to participate actively in the RSWG so that they > are fully aware of proposals early in the policy definition process > and so that any issues or concerns that they have will be raised > during the development of the proposals and will not be left until > the RSAB review period as described in Section 5.2.1. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.2 >=20 > o The RFC Series Editor/Advisor >=20 > I suggest a forward pointer to Section 6. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.2 >=20 > s/THE RSAB/The RSAB/ >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.1.2 >=20 > I would like to raise the issue of whether the designated voting = members > may appoint delegates. For example (and not to imply anything about > anyone) the IETF chair might be considered to already be very busy = with > enough tasks to occupy their time: they might prefer to be able to > appoint a delegate to fill this position for them. >=20 > (It is possible that this is contained int he existing OPEN ISSUE, but = I > don't read it that way.) >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.2.2 >=20 > s/A individual/An individual/ >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.2.2 >=20 > This all looks good, but I wonder whether the WG chairs should be > additionally charged to advertise proposals that have been adopted to > specific communities where appropriate. This is suitable vague that it > doesn't place a heavy burden, but it does point up the responsibility = to > cover odd cases. For example (fatuous example: please don't discuss!), > if there was a proposal to stop publishing RFCs that presented = security > profiles preferred by specific governments, one might hope to involve > the people who have previously authored such documents. >=20 > --- >=20 > 5.2.3 >=20 > The ISOC Board of Trustees MAY decide only whether a > process failure occurred, and what if any corrective action should > take place. >=20 > Notwithstanding my previous comment about 2119. This isn't a "MAY". It > could be shaped as "MUST only." Or simply "may". >=20 > --- >=20 > Given that this document obsoletes RFC 8728, we need to be careful > that we aren't discarding anything we really want to keep. >=20 > Seems to me that there is a fair amount of material about the RPC, > budget, IANA, and security that we want to retain. >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_67E723B3-5AE0-4721-B6A8-C56B171D8EE8 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCGYUAACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNKgwf+IEnrjBsHQp28HkrdkmbdcsWXSW+z7dMr3bF5FsXryD+bz5MDP8CqLX92 hFJRC/lqfhILTP57nGoqL4fo7yuae1KwTVCT5GlO5vYhz3HV1xpFRAr0jqNeuHDa ZimPvrugRzDZL9eiPWmDkCCZqw+qmET7jKpcnMq30fZ6Q4wK/BswkE8uDWRlY3CH zCk9OphAAu9ExuMJRDPw8ajBMOZN3rgLqjuBKgGfsadYYWbxRtgE7bTuMdomhPuO YRxdLVyoGavOjuMmMUoR+rJlMUCw1BJDX0KeIBgbOtYgiG+l1eT+JYep8jEWWMB9 2pw673ev8U3vkht90wdnqlgplFkNrg== =XnDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_67E723B3-5AE0-4721-B6A8-C56B171D8EE8-- From nobody Mon Apr 26 01:20:14 2021 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 245C23A12EC for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.803 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=2.7, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ejMpVdaeAvo0 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 2B2DC3A12E2 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 01:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13Q8K03j000991; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:20:01 +0100 Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB02322040; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:20:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A912203D; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:20:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (74.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13Q8JxFt020158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:20:00 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Eliot Lear'" Cc: References: <057701d736c5$06987170$13c95450$@olddog.co.uk> <59A4E07E-0B89-4C07-8352-CF4E288F2C25@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <59A4E07E-0B89-4C07-8352-CF4E288F2C25@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:19:59 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <0a2801d73a74$f368ada0$da3a08e0$@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: AQLMpNa6i17/cDePZGFVJSHhZnrD+wEbNEgQqNLEddA= Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.74 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-26114.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.893-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--1.893-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-26114.006 X-TMASE-Result: 10--1.892800-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 5+1rHnqhWUTxIbpQ8BhdbMzWN98iBBeGclmyqcvkNGPxgEULZ4ez5Tj5 SCEtqI4ZGk47jFuhhjoqKG2uOLOgpBi/g8KSebL1C/xRU+mwjW99LQinZ4QefGWCfbzydb0g77V HPahGIGcNXwNUB3oA790H8LFZNFG7/nnwJ52QYi+Std83kHCpUX5hAq9T1lyO+qKGaEVRYbJFBf ay3qjhKd/JdcLNaUywJeJ1WMCERkGtftyYo2KwDjKpoRvzNKOP9DB8M7tiaMB/7B6iVYd2rpRMZ UCEHkRt X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 26 Apr 2021 08:20:13 -0000 Ooooh, I get 42. I win! Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Eliot Lear =20 Sent: 26 April 2021 07:44 To: Adrian Farrel Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-saintandre-rfced-model Opened as one issue (42) for now. We can split out things people = don=E2=80=99t agree on as we go on. From nobody Mon Apr 26 18:55:11 2021 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 D9EA93A0CF5 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:08 -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, 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 xa7WO8Pe7v6E for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf33.google.com (mail-qv1-xf33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f33]) (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 559783A0CF2 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf33.google.com with SMTP id i11so22771128qvu.10 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:07 -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=MT7gxl1o6HHLs0gs+5S4YJERk9QaIFubfPxMrEifuHc=; b=Rsn11LGRjj2+pbOIrxSu2Q41CBhusQFb73YxSRIm4Ybfpy9OkKU6o3BikGOdvnutlb n46E3H4g8RqcBbR2qMMeclbaMLMeOb0yc5Jq98b6y0g5MyKjyPs7m+XBdaQ9z5+HjTKq ARKRh2k8UDkdksyW0UFZALU0LLWVOVSkDrjnmhlCwcrhAP6ceiOq3ZzShoAsss3oFCm1 kRbgeqU5rHFipTHkqpRvkvRaKA8Ma9qJWZeTkAzagGT2xLFNeUc1xLWxju0kuVxkekHP y4Y20tASigIk1a+rFQ9C3sYlFE5LooUxGCGNFkR6KppY2iOz+rGTHzjdMJj4mwRCy1AE iOqw== 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=MT7gxl1o6HHLs0gs+5S4YJERk9QaIFubfPxMrEifuHc=; b=IGKFZMFECsCRBV7bMCFU4aOyulD6JcxTUR3KXj9kjK42jhr6r79qJgXCfdrBnZLPyV JDLWyc7D2iNAUDrUpOlFqJ8o0grtjsmrNnGdbxz13i1DSx3UQ6Cn/Aki8j0eklSsP/CB TS5LSY2e7n/8CCaXtw3mxnqvoBVX3U//OPb4AYOPZZHvS1/zN0d+YP0AkxWt+wreBFuR I/m6jYKLUPqL7323xL4s13+IFOBSzewYRubUjzIqqPBux9f6xOSUgKWubjCTOs0cBDn9 /xtFiTlaqKnU3cQnT937xduRlCuwB7lxPvxlPfEohPrJqgHYGNb+Fvs/vJyxpgw1MIhg lGqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53216EYpX/kC/86Ox27KmlipbT9HBs/kgjzY0yUqbLRmz/GaQD7j XYVn6CIvhQjr7uYs9YFocs6slhB+DeGMv2UQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMq9eB4jDk0zCIZVyBk8Ja3ByPl7OHPXjPoojSYYY0tFDIZwwnsK9LOOqjd4gdTJR50JAT8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f589:: with SMTP id k9mr4732195qvm.9.1619488504510; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm1878644qkf.96.2021.04.26.18.55.03 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:03 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <0644be0b-097a-862e-fcf2-b4dd2d3af278@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 21:55:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj1 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, 27 Apr 2021 01:55:09 -0000 As a general comment on the document and its structure:  The document does a reasonable job of describing the control process, but fails at describing how to achieve "success" of the RFC Editor process or even describing what "success" looks like.  While I know we have not yet come to an agreement (and may not) about what success is, there ought to be a structured place in this document that describes it, and the meta process for achieving it. I.e., the fact that the RSWG can originate various proposals may be of interest, but having an overarching agreed upon skeleton on which the proposals may be laid and against which the RSAB can evaluate said proposals seems to be critical preventing a failure of the process. Mike From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:05:08 2021 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 CA7CA3A0DC2 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:06 -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, 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 vzpdH3LAEjMA for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf33.google.com (mail-qv1-xf33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f33]) (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 79F713A0DC1 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf33.google.com with SMTP id a30so1561691qvb.12 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:05 -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=2R5AN+ExDbLubp5bMigDR24qWVsLN85q1Yo8jjaER0M=; b=wBPpi2Fm9E5z8eiezvTC6KVRJ90o6IPMuNz8/5FOfDnkNzEldV2iCXuXqafjdTS+BM 2LY68RGo2fNfzsC4D1CvG9PNCUBDh4GhsHTwL6N4guCrcyzm4l37ER4V/gOKZ9wU13WA GyQgEtEpTb7+1QJSIO8O/SHWQnkLTvnb3Pacl1yNJTj9nexaviRUNHNXHmk9eJyF6kuy hrhVAdP9Z0JAe7atC5aMGDZOJgwe/xDc0KyIJCDjCy/qPlpu9VcUe46gYvG1qTwYn3X8 jIRm2T7ljCuk32yM3p/qDDpJ+3zWccurujzH4ACDMeMZAZd67KPJTpHELMDBF/fdDg9l IQ+w== 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=2R5AN+ExDbLubp5bMigDR24qWVsLN85q1Yo8jjaER0M=; b=jMZSJQXLG3wTC0f3SP7/NmJwPs2LOdVPDm6avdP6+MGAH3XHGOzA5RcCnhCh0UjL5V 7z4rrm7x9JEVOYupSl15cFpy3HHUXODpDGkqjdBPKGm3Xo6yQ4yQK5rnS5F3Wt1p0o9M QPAqQvUL4D6pDo2h84iamJDtziMKA4LILajQP7e3vw3z593vkzNTPDr7A6646s8f9Jen eblvo+Ss5udXL32lPfL0lxqmHUUuQrfH5ZYutf5LYlHQiO0wQsIpXuvl3CihKTaJY/jM 1GrhlPHae6v+frM+rdJ7ngiCxE+4hi3bZ7fLQWZlSWmqix0Zqcmuq6GeMC2XcYFW0iDY cd5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pgZ+/ys/URasL62gyt8ma0LM3jtXfvAn2f9gK/aW2X0BciodA L/naHVMtLUF1Shp6qwVtRA68+ALKwnqXcKuA X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzU1DHcE4MjvQ9yHR9ML5t8EY1vfvDhGuCIxITXMfa4qmpsVdOog9G2JVOXbYFKUM7bv2k5rA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:3eb:: with SMTP id cf11mr21507687qvb.37.1619489103579; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c67sm1998239qkg.50.2021.04.26.19.05.02 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:05:02 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:05:02 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:05:07 -0000 The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a failure of the process. Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to gain consensus within the RSWG.   And that assumes (and this is not necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the RSAB from authoring a document, providing it for community comment and publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in addressing. Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:09:39 2021 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 C48E03A0E13 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:37 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 wtLuOUG_4vDs for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:36 -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 44F3D3A0E12 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id q136so37675821qka.7 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:35 -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=JdWMUOBFJrYv98jNOSqDwBi5YxlhNGzzeGCDu3VN+9o=; b=TNy/CXvcQz6Inf2deHE8jCUBd/dPX9dx4BJ17jYkQFZXczDEtHNNjQUWuGNvWwCXDf ojgrG65Ysi3sTypaYIWKvvhedaecxhEGhwujvXivZ+ELF+waRUiy8l3wXX936EaqDfMK E26PsI6J9y4G6O6a6iKjl4NlqVpxeM3qA6q4m1AWF7bQbCUq1HwirrG8An1u+hhAmL7y OH2Lp8lYAbZN7BJNHzj0gqeIloJZpo/iWDESnwn6WZES2aMN9mkAq6YwUPILvDZAv9Eb 5qsP8g433ugiEPYuoQ9wm/eW8KmlSpAYknPrt9sbKCozVDkwxlTw2XEPVuexlrD2SQ5Q pm+Q== 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=JdWMUOBFJrYv98jNOSqDwBi5YxlhNGzzeGCDu3VN+9o=; b=toLCbWP8X4HKTFA38+FjDYCl8gpRpuLbGBrz87ags/8F+I0VauRPLOZWMxYlicyMGR Ewwg5EtkGX7YhKUcwUG4D6o551iTTiJWEQSj9pb3gVXZ6b3RQoAZzpLC1pCIf3SOJAf6 tmQqVXPWBBiaqS4aWASQMtYIJwS2T7vclLbSoHw7aSTAmRs5WhXd9Tlbs1kaRo+y40rK UGIQPdkqLYrwltz3FkWZbnemzpwvs7JqJyfO6h6eCf00wMl3btWtZ662cTcdXmyii8o+ 2+/0SQLG226kWNuIqxS/T4PS4Ag51+DtP7qdCMUkScOuEwr4h4bHA7tSqf1mti7S4bvW rDEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IJwK9PEKfgTnVNIjcDr5GEM+QMiv2O4t5Mg7ryS0Hd3We5x09 kqC3GI0oK6UT7q8OEA8XZNM/dIRdRJ2V+xAj X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPNIxx5G7obWozd4Yb1FL5FJ3o2FNs60mKYZf1IrtRk6kfc4CNFxxfd1FpuObn5YkjidZ48A== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e417:: with SMTP id q23mr18610397qkc.248.1619489374100; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c17sm12337195qtd.71.2021.04.26.19.09.32 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:09:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:09:38 -0000 Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team.  Explicit include or exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other Nomcom selected folk?   The process needs to be fair, and the selection criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is minimized. From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:18:25 2021 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 41BFC3A0EAD for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:24 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 QNIZ6gaCXdPQ for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:21 -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 BC2273A0E9B for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id 8so24916356qkv.8 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:21 -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=af/mB6plzq9evNORNBBx4u2LJQ4dcIyqIX86KpQelr0=; b=1rzzVKc5Vou4C3N0Lu3ELrqcR8QjdK28Nb4taSjCvhxU18aRZ5Ufi5elaewvkir3uh bTrJZTE97r452XMruKx6LBqaDxRqxso4kAh09dZtVC7YBTZJp+sGmm4WIO4KBHPUUHwz QmrNktyELMD81nLR0G4882n2m+XONw0CahBmW6CvYHXc0uQJ3gUfrPiRnRbEKdPc4CaN V+wUEZNrcv3pc0NLKR7uepnVoXPZO0+sZMXkwb9sxofu9mjb7gdvBzQ9JSLsEmK2C8De oIgeeadE2zCdQ5T22St+q1qshe6bvWebM1SX88YSmxfuVLPMOUcpxWrt3kLEPJ2IWpYz Mv2g== 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=af/mB6plzq9evNORNBBx4u2LJQ4dcIyqIX86KpQelr0=; b=ZW6RKZH4m4SpZE7vAc9EilVbVESvbKmcdvk1Col86m+aHckwG3/eK0OxzwypsUhVyn 3n5nVGP4taAhiOWtmCt7I6YzP/ckT+yKNKT6J9fybRh9Wg7EBFVfVkqewEGqjMxT7fS2 nJlzCdDLIwEJz8ObLH0I70iHJw5qqNN6JZHZhnRsKsSS8R0yaKfK0dvpwQ5wjs8xb06O i/6htsVLi48Ut1T/cTb9sKXC2BFSb1i4ziIvZbcTFNLo2tng4Ze7kmO78wIQKIVIw2/r 9NO0KbxyZqFKX6u13yKh4+6crf9oari0kH4VkDxNp8qIXU0y/Iu80MQejrwYBgftHu9Q rVOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aFJE17Go9suM0N2jz3J2xCHUOEJ1byeH11KWRjBa46DN20ffH UUA++f41AyDwPwHv/quXBFLDusstlp9NVfko X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWCGAbYpKgVTeTOIoGtGPPde6NW4+ygIDCsP59tSW6aOqS6jU3CmekUKr1r7+rF2nplQnZBw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:66a:: with SMTP id a10mr20901957qkh.272.1619489897351; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c2sm2015689qkk.2.2021.04.26.19.18.16 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:18:16 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:18:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:18:24 -0000 Section 6.2 - Periodic review The RSEA must be provided with copies of any comments including their general source (e.g. individual submission, IAB member, IESG member, IESG formal consensus, etc ) and must be allowed an opportunity to answer any negative comments either in writing, or in person to the LLC board.  The comments must be provided to the LLC board un-anonymized. Again, goes to fairness and transparency.  I wouldn't actually have any problem with requiring all comments to be made public with their originators names attached. Nit:  Last paragraph ignores the reality that the RSEA gets a vote.    E.g. "in negotiation with the RSEA". From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:22:44 2021 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 D4F0D3A0F35 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 DjmppuDi3g0x for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:42 -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 94F403A0F2F for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id d12so5138584qtr.4 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:42 -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=5RRDWRaHqybTGmIAN2UnrEoysHL2D7+9Sp5w9lWRrKY=; b=d7ZqDnLHmTYyTcFTnMAtmDmvB8zQs31ewm8our6jaAVPdqSX84htU0QK35QwqNES8L +VF7jqF4BKmM+LpzadlPT6ml7WErLe3OPsAZHhhG0RqorJEyb6ttGUnfMo5DqvQEcNfI AvUDAZ3FEDNrhSudcEREV1GvabZgC2cDTiKZ+ZEq7MOWEmHqmVEedGeU056Rz8uCLKSh wDt9jEAkzCd99t6WEBvBEz2kYY9rKDBOYnvgwPRQ0JdE6ukUVluubU3OhcmA0eFdqvPD lDc/2Llv3aKvlG+bhUomcok2+tqnD/b41raNj5E0hwjZK9m+btdcUAXD2YberltvEXF5 xrWQ== 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=5RRDWRaHqybTGmIAN2UnrEoysHL2D7+9Sp5w9lWRrKY=; b=dN2so8JFKlRIvmwfZos4u3lP22ns1G9r4GrcEngRkyhtZbPueGJqPn42/KlFLLGPc4 kU1PKbwjmSkfq3fX5DpHWBW2q1KfzQdK6yzjoJz+YCw7BdY2UsGJ5XhunS0+MRMIjp4U a/kCUQHUFz67hQKu5gcZHl6PF4Mva73m/Z42PHzdmK64bP3JqsQOvprS+cWQRX3FeK39 KX0PNb3t/j18UITNjUx0/65wdSiE/n4+T6hpCP9G4nb42ANr/AgfE5wexvZ3AoGuYxk1 SvqHtNSGT8a0HqIH/OdkSUhbM7O3g8z3KOzFJFREgr7Z6mTFAD1erk6IMcTvMWX5Y8Hi fB3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dx3DzW7gqzBVO6ONj5ae9B88u5OmlQTdHupmv3C8ZfGdb70ec pfnfXemyfTBj/mm0/eWUvHglqsaBqjczt6YA X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygLBDWAs9WMzoXQhCITFe0tpT3WHp7Twl3DS1VfFlQQ4CKZn4YX8QPtlexZzKeaLV9z1C1vg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:100f:: with SMTP id d15mr20265886qte.2.1619490160109; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h65sm1864699qkd.112.2021.04.26.19.22.39 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:39 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <239c6231-1a8c-a51b-e2ac-9763308dba00@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:22:38 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj5 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:22:44 -0000 Section 5: This talks about policies, but WGs produce documents. Let's formalize the "Editorial Stream" and the role of the RSWG and RSAB is to produce documents in the Editorial Stream.  Those will include policy documents, style guides, document templates, RPC operational guidance... what else? E.g. standards for producing high quality specification and discussion documents within the IETF community of interest. Mike From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:22:55 2021 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 63D8C3A0F39 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 fIL6IFDlU8F3 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:48 -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 E75EB3A0FC9 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FTlsg3f5bz6G9vv; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619490167; bh=7hDv4brBJuKYFceZkSHTIWJor8VEIpimJzO8iIiem6o=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZVSkiTsx0r4EnQyLFK6nUm3JEjFzzn3hhCmT3P2Ok3F2hF2bAFWO5+zdMvo87LSfE Mqk/T92kHnbVlVc4VhFkgaWhgJ6Ws+e9JIfHg5yKGX8IHt9ASZSwTdTCYxPJQAPNBA Qpe7kJP2Tb/YAPmtWsaXKYvpXrEHpduMDqkP9uDE= X-Quarantine-ID: <8f4LfEtsmxOb> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FTlsg01PWz6G9rN; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:46 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:22:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:22:52 -0000 Given that this is to be strategic direction, not tactical choices or day-to-day operations, it is not clear to me that the RSAB does need (or even should have) the authority to move a document forward without the support of the RSWG. If it is that important, they ought to be able to get more people to participate so that the RSWG engages. If they can't get necessary work done, then it seems to me we have a problem with the whole process. Yours, Joel On 4/26/2021 10:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence > beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a > consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a > failure of the process. > > Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents along > that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of their > streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to gain > consensus within the RSWG.   And that assumes (and this is not > necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. > > Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the RSAB > from authoring a document, providing it for community comment and > publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in addressing. > > Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. > From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:23:17 2021 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 1D7153A0F44 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:23:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 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_LOW=-0.7, 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=OF4jPidT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nYCBrOKA 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 R3LLGdqlYk8V for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88BA03A0F41 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5DF1534 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:23:09 -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=fm2; bh=EVvV5 xOpJNiJ8KBqOwFOTFbqhdhc0WD3jeCoNXJ4GFM=; b=OF4jPidTtkn/A7dCQrsSP EUEWj5RK1EEGEQzDieyAiiL6PyIMIIKwlALhh9K3hJ75EBBEwIPKDago30MtMc1S 8/ELxHWRJn+ROtp4nFHe+fsNV6nqFbTdCfD3WskIRUj/n1SeJPTa4Z9raQQwiPO4 zbVFuZkkTQ9wr4c+sdfe9ZLZyPgRAiDNFx6WKB62JtoIFrGq70rC1AulSkXLz8BF YilYzRMwEutr1yzWD87FRdYHOmTeiDT5BTqONS9S4LIfJL++7+yycNIR/pMEdj3m 9xxrMyDdMUuVHXOkoIjgvVNUcVxQs1Mz4Otdj/9iXw/uLOx1glN8Oq54rCTtzNnR w== 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=fm2; bh=EVvV5xOpJNiJ8KBqOwFOTFbqhdhc0WD3jeCoNXJ4G FM=; b=nYCBrOKA+FfZCVmUDvcmXm7kuUHR1NZ2lTbQ4IooO69VNyPV61TvCsP2Z XIZmnKldp1u7xoTkXhR9+L2qgNb1B9ld6zD+vx4NNZ6Btsiw9eAj6BElkZgiXHrL VKYX2yPwBL5QV1f2k6mzcs7QiVorSBbdAMpHIsCR/aBhJ69WUhd99tqe+KZVDCbr M9fVRISyS1QJdok5sP9HSyhRdwF2yMqugMzft3uoDzZ0o2DsOuFLU7nw710WLPZa VQdao4/gBJFk+xgS3LLt94f00Xt7bUp8k7xxxbUZyZRXY4kGWlyfznECTyzl2r1i jN+gduB0d+9LDI7SAeLOVsRd+/xhw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdduledgkeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfejueduieffledtge elheejvdettdejudduhefggeefgfekgfeuieetgefftddtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihii vgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnh gvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE3014E0091; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:23:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-403-gbc3c488b23-fm-20210419.005-gbc3c488b Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:22:49 +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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:23:16 -0000 On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, at 12:05, Michael StJohns wrote: > Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents alon= g=20 > that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of their=20= > streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to gain=20= > consensus within the RSWG.=C2=A0=C2=A0=20 I can't agree with this. Streams that *need* to publish can publish on their own streams. That m= ight be subject to rules established for that stream, but if something i= s important enough for a stream, that's an option. When it comes to things that affect all streams, having this closed grou= p act without engaging with the RSWG is just outside the spirit of the a= greed structure. We're still talking about strategy, are we not? From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:31:35 2021 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 56C2A3A1016 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:31:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 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_LOW=-0.7, 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=3Lou4HwF; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=O0pI5YkD 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 R2qSrqvh6RgS for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 851D23A1009 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35D5102C for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:31:23 -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=fm2; bh=XLaPF ef23YMd42F7lSdL/lZ0excItv9Txh9BtfGSjfw=; b=3Lou4HwFoSSJSdp9A55zK CYMRxjMFsDMWx+00akqjWra78hqDRP26d6GZSz5XYGFbCVCN2JsSEXr/QPa88+Lc fsxIL4XAEzOQW9AObwD5BqsaVxfUbqYdQhbXxB9Bgg8iNZsUmKk4t5LPsCaCq36g 6rm+YvJMkijQZ6ho0fVBzCjTOhQWQn/EZOcx9MrrpiuQtRfG4aPLcnvc9L+Duwsg hU3lL7qfvIj+eE0sSC8X8AfW6pb7IkD2etcsrOq/OS3/6yj/YtIacS4kDQw9EmEi p+n9KOoKMLTzXjeyJBnRUlsZFjm8AV/f31iYPmtgxxBMMeXz6SyRgu7MnZflAcmY g== 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=fm2; bh=XLaPFef23YMd42F7lSdL/lZ0excItv9Txh9BtfGSj fw=; b=O0pI5YkDGIxS3qKGgA5kEG1QlUlJwUwpOyXPh+gaey0OXtBau+KgpghxS WLKRrB/jZSq6xWglS9fJFzzzRsONEsRI51RMir19HGStS+koDUFjTOJMBWhFyWGz JRlp4tRCAED2sMAbwn+db1eGzmuN40AZVegaeuddG1ZQgZZUSxs3c8d1/QM0+cir 6PGTX8nFhCP+21yiFBV/sSQb/BrrvArhGJontSog1jgnl07pve2Sw1+MnPp54/mt MgcY2metVkmPk3KFCaeno6wvggzuczEqS8BIcA5KBQiNVMUH6QqbDkXhcNzAyTrR u92c3AxcSwpZKhvP1fcqpWqSmkz0A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdduledgledtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgefftefhteejgfejhf fgfeevjefhffffffefhfdtgffgjeeutdelteekveeuudetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehirggs rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3A24C4E0091; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:31:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-403-gbc3c488b23-fm-20210419.005-gbc3c488b Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5469f11a-0d29-438a-9849-e40770b4969c@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <476a3e86-5258-c298-2a5b-bd32569db8c6@joelhalpern.com> References: <476a3e86-5258-c298-2a5b-bd32569db8c6@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:31:03 +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] Closing consensus on starting text - JMH issue 5 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:31:33 -0000 A better answer might be that the RSAB is responsible for selecting *at = least two* chairs. And probably no more than three. The RSAB cannot ap= point themselves. (I agree with Joel that this was definitely not discussed and agreed, no= t even in principle. Worth debating explicitly.) The proposal here has some interesting properties. But it implicitly pr= esumes that these equities are the important ones or in need of balance,= but there are two other streams that might not be well served by this. On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, at 04:23, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > This issue is not because I think the text is wrong, but because I do=20= > not think it was discussed and I do not think it can be treated as=20 > closed without discussion. The relvant text is: >=20 > The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each appoi= nt=20 > and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. >=20 > I can't think of a better answer. But if we are going to do this, I=20= > want it explicitly agreed, not slid past quietly. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 >=20 > On 4/15/2021 2:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > All, > >=20 > > The chairs have not received any significant objections to the start= ing point that we called consensus on a little over two weeks ago. As d= iscussed, anyone can open issues on this text. We ask that those issues= be opened either on this list or in GitHub first and then directly afte= rwards on this list. All discussion should take place on this list. Th= e group has not agreed to use of Github issues for discussion. > >=20 > > We propose that the deadline for new issues be a month from this pos= ting. After that, we will raise the bar for opening of issues. Exactly= how we raise the bar will be a discussion point on this list. > >=20 > > To open an issue on this list, simply put ISSUE: at the beginning of= the subject. If you have already opened a Github issue, please include = the URL in the message, so that we don=E2=80=99t duplicate. > >=20 > > The intent is that we go through open issues at our next meeting whi= ch we will doodle for shortly. All issues will have a two week consensu= s check. Are there any concerns or objections to this process? > >=20 > > Eliot > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:34:44 2021 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 39F983A104F for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 l_nTo6JnXYVs for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 CE7203A104C for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id w20so2444670pge.13 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:40 -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=I3x4ZHKxblPiO1VPZEyBNY/tScDg5SixUJCD6rIRYUw=; b=GY0t3SrNa8Nl2thtXiMKUt/jaddWLcgvHy8l5ePBU+U9dmXhu4kqVKkej3JzOi2OfF jtIWW2KqGUxy0lXiFK2CtZhIV5pEHgnJlldE7zN1zoY/NovHAKij99fzXhmx8gR/CAwd M7Q8AYge16cwnmOCmxpuZ7xkb5ywL4gJ42EiXy3EHebNTSPwBrqx4FCLw2l9jDsORZ+o W1UaDHVxwV2lUJjYnwRzdqXuGpsqRh0UeY/4U6R23k5x07CmZ7H54dbnpgxCcmEePLKq rzb5KRq92yUDEzAmOdJODOJ/OsSKAxkpwIDCWmVOcDLe4wO+ZE3+xW4yytYvvqu1HfLM Fzcw== 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=I3x4ZHKxblPiO1VPZEyBNY/tScDg5SixUJCD6rIRYUw=; b=ocWKvQFx1FjplpPZZF1Nq3NpRd5puojLLThfwDPWTFASMAC9j2M49QSOxUCgBe6yjW Gzv48PevZsqG2tyXZzIU0K3v8Z9xENQ5Jga2nJm+f4EnTXhp8y2bdmWoV1hYZjSIol/q N93TtmCX1+/Jbmq4nFXejskLuupKA5/o55u7rM2Tx3ijfYt6wrUDb+WLEHTO3o2tNKPJ XBemASPuz0Ghj9g3junTilwtL5ytHce3Tz97kD9t+A8rft8TA41HxutYgsX9eCZpe1HO +S+hopSqpEh62i332PXU3uQS+EQkBoEpyySTDLJORJWfB+RDUlH0NF0sS/6qCRWKCXr2 lyWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533f6ByzOqc8YX49lKGoQwVByHmPzprXFgf09vSAsFO3ahF8tvy/ APT0vpjGRFeFWkllrt31GVp77YJhFAIKzg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlLJvpwrRXZ54Cy3dZ45eo9UsRBES7y42FiaGSzt7PdZIMLVpBzxiWYbJFGEVXtR+NO4EI4Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1157:: with SMTP id 23mr19765226pgr.25.1619490879287; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jx20sm582373pjb.41.2021.04.26.19.34.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:34:38 -0700 (PDT) To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <2e4ede5d-1de2-407b-2f7a-94cc48b48d76@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:34:35 +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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:34:43 -0000 On 27-Apr-21 14:22, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, at 12:05, Michael StJohns wrote: >> Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents alon= g=20 >> that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of their = >> streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to gain=20 >> consensus within the RSWG.=C2=A0=C2=A0=20 >=20 > I can't agree with this. >=20 > Streams that *need* to publish can publish on their own streams. That = might be subject to rules established for that stream, but if something i= s important enough for a stream, that's an option. >=20 > When it comes to things that affect all streams, having this closed gro= up act without engaging with the RSWG is just outside the spirit of the a= greed structure. We're still talking about strategy, are we not? Yes. IMHO it should be a bit like the difference between a law (which has= been through the whole legislative process) and a regulation (which is s= igned off by an official). For example, imagine an RFC that says "There s= hall be a style guide. Its text is approved by the RSAE." You might not a= gree with that, but it would make the boundaries of authority clear. I th= ink Mike's model would create some fuzziness. Brian From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:43:22 2021 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 8AFC13A10CE for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:20 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 pQCVMwSYkQgw for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:19 -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 2DF1A3A10CB for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id q136so37731360qka.7 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:18 -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=GmObqWcH/5zHMvMzZ2DQI6bFVORpo6szaHaDC2io4Mw=; b=Or36+RVwLmKQb2BBWWe7o3ov6sTiv9RM3kYskiMVplwXmUQ8cLvr0ktV4Jn/gZtm1A lZO1CdSBnFRk/G4IiCJvSPKmxdRAMyGXI/hTs9RfTRf11NxDDBrjXlMM7ihUpsiGFHg5 9J2zFKFNvJD7+S1lYZtuzmMNr8/g6zSY7OUH9+gGtx4GRr0bYByBn8PAMXg1CYKr8oQd QcxE/9ctoB+XyDR8gIg48gIRNI9GxNT5t8Gr2mELX6apTU8wMhyQV8SVqZ1I4EWUvEyr xObiYui2DN03qJ0O4ITl3/fra6mqD6DkOV2VepftNuER3WsjFLUsv3jgindX0Gr+9th6 tBOg== 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=GmObqWcH/5zHMvMzZ2DQI6bFVORpo6szaHaDC2io4Mw=; b=qnm9z9zUPqJ7apWdxdbOFWzveD+5Jfq+jGF84ZrsBh5Jnrhwa7N2KdCheuvYQukexW iIyyHr0DRWyr2dDOocQOA8TNjNzJhHZEjB/ybeovBPJWCaaqPCJk9eg1QvsExGX2/Ox2 CqGCzZNlzr3cL4vnYLPRCjDdYTT8SVCv3AYZo63jrvbDu3s5jjpWnCNlAazfjIQ42YIx mqWFA9ohCRpNVamUplEAT8EsrUmchylymQeD4ZDjBICYXa7uLjyKvP60UIB4Vtfyhx6+ Kaooo++RcLEEdkWtv1gcFl7a1kTguy5hSpHzfVyLMqnzs5svuO37hA5lD/pEPw1I+Su/ V9dw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lWM+BgUtNaYBdmqiGNYedYRl+iSGIuM2t83klOJ6W//673Dvv /2tv9RhcT2Bfcgz5Qm2XMDY1/agBA9UkctOg X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjbaOuG8j9Td7aoFC69raXspYE+5g575pkFnA0viemxUYy4Fcaf7P1iEEmei3kOl645GXYhw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:a9c:: with SMTP id v28mr8503787qkg.105.1619491396820; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14sm1766189qke.123.2021.04.26.19.43.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:43:15 -0700 (PDT) To: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:43:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:43:21 -0000 On 4/26/2021 10:22 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Given that this is to be strategic direction, not tactical choices or > day-to-day operations, it is not clear to me that the RSAB does need > (or even should have) the authority to move a document forward without > the support of the RSWG.  If it is that important, they ought to be > able to get more people to participate so that the RSWG engages.  If > they can't get necessary work done, then it seems to me we have a > problem with the whole process. This WG which really isn't a WG needs to be able to operate indefinitely, without a WG like charter (e.g. with a defined work plan) with very intermittent document production.   It may go years between producing a document.  Which might mean having to actively recruit new people with each possible document.  Not what I would consider a formula for success. I expect that many (most?) documents will be rather non-controversial, will involve specific nuances of publication technology or process that most IETF participants couldn't care to expend a single read on, and could mostly be farmed out to the paid-for expert.   Providing those for community comment, revision by the expert and approval by the RSAB would seem to me to be at least the fall back process. I expect pretty much any document in this series to be "strategic" for some value of strategic.   I expect the RSAB and the RSWG to keep its fingers out of the tactical and day to day stuff (e.g. most of what John L is doing for us). By default, the minimum RSWG consists of the RSAB plus the two chairs.   I expect that to be the typical set of participants as well except for dealing with some of the hobby horses certain folk are hoping to ride once this gets done.  C.f. Mark Nottingham's document.  Once those are disposed of, I hope for blessed silence. I maintain this needs to be opened as an issue. (I think the above covers Martin's note as well). Mike > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/26/2021 10:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence >> beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a >> consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a >> failure of the process. >> >> Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents >> along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of >> their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to >> gain consensus within the RSWG.   And that assumes (and this is not >> necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. >> >> Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the >> RSAB from authoring a document, providing it for community comment >> and publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in >> addressing. >> >> Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. >> From nobody Mon Apr 26 19:55:02 2021 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 5B7223A1184 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 BV2XSZoLX7Lr for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:54:54 -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 EF86E3A1183 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FTmZk3t8dz6G9wc; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619492094; bh=3kB484UmyafVTRhk+aWsTZLqLIT1eZMFhoKnm9OF92I=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HFjwnZk2WmuoRTXVv5PjqdaILrAkPo1sytUE1qDzJhmDSHWXEfwZfQ6u0fExJG2yB zCKkQn7FDz+vlePenkTwKVmD3a5mmHtA9wKy9mmlDa/TWssuTlqUxtCdPesA93R35B snxQd7JeNO+i3fdJevgKLyNDl0VF8JheAI2BoqGY= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FTmZk0K0Gz6G9wK; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:54:53 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Joel Halpern Direct Message-ID: <91168ef6-404e-5f24-45ae-ca6cb68caebd@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:54:53 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:59 -0000 In case I was unclear, I was not objecting to opening the issue. I was starting the discussion of the issue. I presume Eliot or Brian will open an issue as they indicated. Yours, Joel On 4/26/2021 10:43 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 4/26/2021 10:22 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Given that this is to be strategic direction, not tactical choices or >> day-to-day operations, it is not clear to me that the RSAB does need >> (or even should have) the authority to move a document forward without >> the support of the RSWG.  If it is that important, they ought to be >> able to get more people to participate so that the RSWG engages.  If >> they can't get necessary work done, then it seems to me we have a >> problem with the whole process. > > This WG which really isn't a WG needs to be able to operate > indefinitely, without a WG like charter (e.g. with a defined work plan) > with very intermittent document production.   It may go years between > producing a document.  Which might mean having to actively recruit new > people with each possible document.  Not what I would consider a formula > for success. > > I expect that many (most?) documents will be rather non-controversial, > will involve specific nuances of publication technology or process that > most IETF participants couldn't care to expend a single read on, and > could mostly be farmed out to the paid-for expert.   Providing those for > community comment, revision by the expert and approval by the RSAB would > seem to me to be at least the fall back process. > > I expect pretty much any document in this series to be "strategic" for > some value of strategic.   I expect the RSAB and the RSWG to keep its > fingers out of the tactical and day to day stuff (e.g. most of what John > L is doing for us). > > By default, the minimum RSWG consists of the RSAB plus the two chairs. I > expect that to be the typical set of participants as well except for > dealing with some of the hobby horses certain folk are hoping to ride > once this gets done.  C.f. Mark Nottingham's document.  Once those are > disposed of, I hope for blessed silence. > > I maintain this needs to be opened as an issue. > > (I think the above covers Martin's note as well). > > Mike > > > >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 4/26/2021 10:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence >>> beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a >>> consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a >>> failure of the process. >>> >>> Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents >>> along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of >>> their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to >>> gain consensus within the RSWG.   And that assumes (and this is not >>> necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. >>> >>> Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the >>> RSAB from authoring a document, providing it for community comment >>> and publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in >>> addressing. >>> >>> Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. >>> > From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:42:52 2021 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 C12CA3A1862 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:42:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 9WBbBA7OOkMB for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:42:45 -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 67D923A1861 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:42:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5440; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509365; x=1620718965; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=xdkDjPONMMYIFUSt32PtsHPg0JIJauWe/wNhdaYIY0U=; b=a27Dj4ezfKSX7Q06s6q9qP1Vprp8RO2z2inzO4Wjr43Wq6wUwzHLBUyJ OiL7J5cDBP4WMA4NU62LOp36thW1jfwY9NFQyLbzDRKwvsqyz1/y5J3MB toM9UKRar2ig0XIaD2MKycx/Pc0MLNdQsZKbAN9B2n8zKloLKFR0SmqZj Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATAAB7v4dglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBQQMBAQELAYEiU4ICAScSMY1HiHKHfoxPiCAEBwEBAQoDAQE0BAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?FACgXsmNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVdhkQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDAXkFCwsEFC5XBhOCcQGCZiGoRHiBNIEBhFiEeBCBOgGBUoUvhlVDgguBE?= =?us-ascii?q?ycMEIJfPogPgisEgWaBRAQdVoEsnxKdFYMZg0GBRpgVBCGUQZBQhk+uJgGEB?= =?us-ascii?q?QIEBgUCFoFqIoFbMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDo4rDQmOLT8DLzgCBgoBAQMJjQ8BA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:kCsrJKOANdDcN8BcTkOjsMiAIKoaSvp033AA3SlKOH9oW+afkN 2jm+le6A/shF8qNE0ItNicNMC7IE/02oVy5eAqV4uKfA6jg2ewKZEn0I2K+V3dMgnz7PRU26 slU6UWMrDNJHx7icq/3wWiCdYnx7C8n5yAvuvVw3dzQQwCUcgJhDtRMQqVHlZ7QwNLH/MCZf +hz/BarDmtc2l/VKqGL0QCNtKzxeHjpdbDaR4CCwVP0njrsRqYrJjnDhOfwhASFxRIzLtKyx miryXJooO+rvq81hjQk1X20q0Tst7gxtxfbfb87fQoFg== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35428882" 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; 27 Apr 2021 07:42:43 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7ggSG020743 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:42:43 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <61028732-70DF-40A4-9659-15ADF4E7E827@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DF7247D2-1362-4D64-BC0D-603F062FFB93"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:42:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <0644be0b-097a-862e-fcf2-b4dd2d3af278@nthpermutation.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: <0644be0b-097a-862e-fcf2-b4dd2d3af278@nthpermutation.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj1 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:42:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DF7247D2-1362-4D64-BC0D-603F062FFB93 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FD5B39DD-E0A8-4B3C-8537-20CB6FBCAB9E" --Apple-Mail=_FD5B39DD-E0A8-4B3C-8537-20CB6FBCAB9E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 47 > On 27 Apr 2021, at 03:55, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > As a general comment on the document and its structure: The document = does a reasonable job of describing the control process, but fails at = describing how to achieve "success" of the RFC Editor process or even = describing what "success" looks like. While I know we have not yet come = to an agreement (and may not) about what success is, there ought to be a = structured place in this document that describes it, and the meta = process for achieving it. >=20 >=20 > I.e., the fact that the RSWG can originate various proposals may be of = interest, but having an overarching agreed upon skeleton on which the = proposals may be laid and against which the RSAB can evaluate said = proposals seems to be critical preventing a failure of the process. --Apple-Mail=_FD5B39DD-E0A8-4B3C-8537-20CB6FBCAB9E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Issue= 47

    On 27 Apr 2021, at 03:55, Michael StJohns = <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:

    As a general comment on the document and its structure:  = The document does a reasonable job of describing the control process, = but fails at describing how to achieve "success" of the RFC Editor = process or even describing what "success" looks like.  While I know = we have not yet come to an agreement (and may not) about what success = is, there ought to be a structured place in this document that describes = it, and the meta process for achieving it.


    I.e., the fact that the RSWG can originate various proposals = may be of interest, but having an overarching agreed upon skeleton on = which the proposals may be laid and against which the RSAB can evaluate = said proposals seems to be critical preventing a failure of the = process.

    = --Apple-Mail=_FD5B39DD-E0A8-4B3C-8537-20CB6FBCAB9E-- --Apple-Mail=_DF7247D2-1362-4D64-BC0D-603F062FFB93 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwHIACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOp+Af9F1yrJzHEmlIE6818eQXOdD5YGJcf+uX5M4pDR35OAagcOkhzV0jpvwIq JdWfbndQ63JpxTj3hh6j4GTF82JrWEMjYXXiqjSX5TOiFhSzT2JabaC61SiKRBF3 VzHBLx2uXPfcigVQ5LtCN/XwX3G4PcGwCsiIYU7c/FPar6BAHiwLb36w53l+5jCw xIpSrPHT5z6WOA99J7ORDKDi/5+eZgrojqlOesHmCJhiMDp71Sk17bvhTAIBn3wp Q+K1rDT2EE4GxrrZXuP6Zj62l1VxCP1FmSj9kUIDl3mr6eTaMUHXJOKNTCWb2ioc c4UgAd1OxTA+j+ozm/W7EFmVn4pM9w== =9QX6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DF7247D2-1362-4D64-BC0D-603F062FFB93-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:43:32 2021 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 E8A3B3A1869 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 y5_uwjzDtLok for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:43:26 -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 D7E4E3A1868 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:43:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509406; x=1620719006; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=o1Uphng0UFzLmYJHrBcVnrPdZkp9aJSbyxMMzEQ7XEM=; b=KsBTwhAqOrK2TtNm9tBUWbxrz+193ZGUqB4HE190H232c1KxdiPDg+6g hi0GW68Y3QOR5yXmpsYqDp+7KTUmp2XojSv0NQDzfslcWOQ7vuTH3udVS KPUmK5CcrlOS3tqJbkzrDu8xM3mcGH1dwyaIWD3LF+ke+rudJGT3pV0lw U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATAADDv4dglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBQQMBAQELAYMhVgEnEjGNR4hynG0EBwEBAQoDAQEdCwwEAQGEUAKBe?= =?us-ascii?q?yY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohVANhkQBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBbAsFCwsYLicwBhOCcQGCZiEPqDV4gTSBAYRYhHgKBoE6AYFSjARDgguBE?= =?us-ascii?q?yccgl8+gmABhS6CKwSDLlMgO3FkkViMVosrkWqDGYNBgUaYFQQhgz+RApBQt?= =?us-ascii?q?HUBhAUCBAYFAhaBaiKBWzMaCBsVOyoBgj4+EhkOjjiIa4VLPwMvOAIGCgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wmNDwEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:EwLYT6uo/g4vTfKIS2cVsZ0a7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35489086" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Apr 2021 07:43:23 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7ggSH020743 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:43:23 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <5259CA20-8FD5-4CBC-837F-A822FFFE716F@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B981866-A36A-4B4A-892D-D309F7F03204"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:43:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:43:31 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6B981866-A36A-4B4A-892D-D309F7F03204 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 48. > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:09, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or = exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other = Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection = criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is = minimized. >=20 >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_6B981866-A36A-4B4A-892D-D309F7F03204 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwJoACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejPatwgAwzbXcBAvLYRyqGYrpmGt8PnHJQH4yJPcZQHIw2b800KhpgHFRbeamYRK BZj4yZUEKQNkaX4I8dq+0bm8+/cpxlS6zHSrOt1hmZWxcWZ+fNnsbEXBJTRPk66Y 8yrvwWgNhKZrQR5Y85abrDKYV7BGV6yhDdJyOqgdBx379sqwwc6+nEJivAeZbo1R JZgmZKjkJvajqJeySCdwhRlQIbkbW7PXpMNGLs0OQ/upr5Sk5I1KU7nHPFWJTpsQ 4Y6VGJsfvZNR+nz87ThyfIDuwWClzi62mwktuzaYbry23UQ7upP1Njd3lGPd8A10 y8dmCj9IsWpd6+x4Gr2Hd3GIFlwkDQ== =xbnr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6B981866-A36A-4B4A-892D-D309F7F03204-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:44:50 2021 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 CAF193A187A for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:44:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_NONE=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 X1W2qeaWgswZ for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:44:44 -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 CF2053A1875 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:44:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509484; x=1620719084; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=y7c99IazsTbdO6e6hccQ0V8sDOWgENoNAKnRar8RiTo=; b=ksDu2dbD/MS1XfQuD10IxRLr1P/DM2tptnH+uze/l5bkjNhBFx1dNW4G /y8So9g5kEOIXXgCp4iqIzhYFD/tbXed2brGAC0MOo/DaNi9tiA0qlhLy XPDXlr4lBVaNiNW+4jioR0W7zh/uCUVreAXqEpFzt4R5tLAiLMbRDtsRv A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AeAADDv4dglxbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIFSgyJWAScSMY1HiG8DgQybYQQHAQEBCgMBAR0LDAQBAYRQA?= =?us-ascii?q?oF7JjgTAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVQDYZEAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAWwLBQsLGC4nMAYTgnEBgmYhD6g1eIE0gQGEWIR4CgaBOgGBUowEQ4ILg?= =?us-ascii?q?RMnHIIpNj6CYAGFLoIrBIICgSxTIDtpQQ2eTIsrkWqDGYNBgUaYFQQhlEGQU?= =?us-ascii?q?LR1AYQFAgQGBQIWgWshgVszGggbFTsqAYI+PhIZDo44iGuFSz8DLzgCBgoBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMJjQ8BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:WwWzvqA+EsBznxHlHeku55DYdL4zR+YMi2QD/UoZc203TuWzkc eykPMHkSLlkTp5Yh0dsP2JJaXoexLh3LFv5415B92fdSng/FClNYRzqbblqgeBJwTb+vRG3a ltN4hyYeecMXFfjcL3pDa1CMwhxt7vys+VrNzTxXtsUg1mApsIh2xEIz2WHUFsSA5NCYBRLu v42uN8uzGidX4LB/7UOlA5WYH41r/2vaOjRRYHAhI9gTP+6Q+A2frdDwWS2AsYXndpx7ovmF K19TDR1+GEr+yxzAPa2ivoy6lu3PHlytdFGaW3+68oFgk= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35489128" 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; 27 Apr 2021 07:44:42 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7ifV0003945 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:44:41 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_09457398-112E-4EA5-8D1D-4014D38E826A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:44:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:44:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_09457398-112E-4EA5-8D1D-4014D38E826A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 49. > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:18, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Section 6.2 - Periodic review >=20 > The RSEA must be provided with copies of any comments including their = general source (e.g. individual submission, IAB member, IESG member, = IESG formal consensus, etc ) and must be allowed an opportunity to = answer any negative comments either in writing, or in person to the LLC = board. The comments must be provided to the LLC board un-anonymized. >=20 > Again, goes to fairness and transparency. I wouldn't actually have = any problem with requiring all comments to be made public with their = originators names attached. >=20 > Nit: Last paragraph ignores the reality that the RSEA gets a vote. = E.g. "in negotiation with the RSEA". >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_09457398-112E-4EA5-8D1D-4014D38E826A 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwOgACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMCGAf+PhuwA/t7WkdpxWm5HS+II+CpqAh3+S/xBLTJybNwklvQTS3jCYkAuULu nGkS9pgzrPPzU+kL3ET5lnY+lcz6kVi9iyxiXnkSfispSN+re8JV3gB2z/zBRu8J XSjF+tLj1L4McZYDkcI5DluH/f8QFUkQVumV3O2bNbhYGDQigs0ihi64XchCRUly 46RN3+Bvl/wIH6QP8f4YeBNTAFjpDzctLhCuTQ+g04JbFWxMbB8mMEldqBnxLIlh W3RGnogJIazBPXg26ZHRFeejt4jWv3PdWhNoD5tdmvP8EnA6Np/5BVv3oWHkHRwo Po/N/95uwZxsyyL7AtTDRPuQbHofYw== =xQAU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_09457398-112E-4EA5-8D1D-4014D38E826A-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:45:31 2021 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 5BF6A3A1888 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:45:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 8xNYE3YAWypA for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:45:24 -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 61D433A1886 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1689; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509524; x=1620719124; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=6KqN6F+4T66EWOhq6CYzynFXhwBWAjD/0kEL7nmZrXs=; b=D3UJC/EYQpMIPPGSQrqKA3ZsWLrAT6/4cgfGwN+B3BGJVLKLBGnA1hAq Hubay0FAyAU8fa6qcjbZxq09abxL5TCUuFPm4kX+1uFMLOXoGM3NuZbZX VymgV5C7O1Ls/WmBIAsoxEFchzY+/9oeK4mI4/WwDeqdq60T80YgDs/qk I=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DwAADDv4dg/xbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBUoMiVgEnEjGNR4hynG0EBwEBAQoDAQEdCwwEAQGEUAKBeyY4EwIDA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHEThVANhkQBAQEDAQEBbAsFCwsYLicwBhMUg?= =?us-ascii?q?l0BgmYhD6g1eIE0gQGEWIR4CgaBOoFTjARDgguBEyccgl8+gmABhS6CKwSDK?= =?us-ascii?q?gEDUyA7kwyMd50VgxmDQYFGmBUEIZRBkFC0dQGEBQIEBgUCFoFrI4FZMxoIG?= =?us-ascii?q?xU7KgGCPj4SGQ6XI4VLPwMvOAIGCgEBAwmNDwEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:mi6K+qkvvtMbpH+iwOxwRCKDnRbpDfKu3DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwvc rGpoV56TbfjjENVHY83e2RIaXoex/h3LN8/IV5B9afdSb8vm/AFutfxKvkhwbtAijvstNavJ 0BT4FbBMfrBVZ3yeb2iTPUL/8FwN2KtJ+lnv3fyXAFd25XQppt5Qt4FQqXe3ceLGJ7LKE0G5 aG6s1MqyDIQwVzUu2AGnIHU+LfzuekqLvaZ3c9dnwawTjLqTup7bLgeiLouis2Yndo3aoo93 TDnkjf4Kiu2svLrCP05iv084lcnsfnx594IPG0zuIRKjnql2+TFeNcZ4E= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33056010" 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; 27 Apr 2021 07:45:22 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7ifV1003945 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:45:22 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <555930BB-89CB-4FCB-B8C3-FE26D0D5E4F3@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2DA0DF4B-1587-4F30-B67B-0CB27567EC5E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:45:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <239c6231-1a8c-a51b-e2ac-9763308dba00@nthpermutation.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: <239c6231-1a8c-a51b-e2ac-9763308dba00@nthpermutation.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj5 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:45:29 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2DA0DF4B-1587-4F30-B67B-0CB27567EC5E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think this is covered by Issue 22. > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:22, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Section 5: >=20 > This talks about policies, but WGs produce documents. >=20 > Let's formalize the "Editorial Stream" and the role of the RSWG and = RSAB is to produce documents in the Editorial Stream. Those will = include policy documents, style guides, document templates, RPC = operational guidance... what else? >=20 > E.g. standards for producing high quality specification and discussion = documents within the IETF community of interest. >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_2DA0DF4B-1587-4F30-B67B-0CB27567EC5E 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwREACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOiOwf+MLOTLhDmzdghtDzaz8KDGsa++9hNKD1zplHogl04ECd1k95XVhk9+IYl PH4WWPT8PIf5NSmbnDPhg/NQTq/jqmcT4G1T/fLK30BTGDFKtQLVl5zPzYp49/Ba bjRYpi3N8wCmpYD9t/Dk+DyJSjnvD7YHZhZVjOKxTxrb1vTUg8O6wqrxpWUw2wLD hYZVcdIFzYy6nOADeq9Yswu/SIAYP9e1QsEwAjvyHnbHXRvLMUT7q6LQE5pVKHeB S0j5VYkX+jPeXGGLvdp24zXerWjjaLbEAAqpfLiLFx/BqAFQQHLNIQyxRTXp+aky VRuZzpy7kZLgkZYjRbwW0yp/IPDnRg== =GBfT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2DA0DF4B-1587-4F30-B67B-0CB27567EC5E-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:47:25 2021 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 CA3283A18AD for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 r1LoHXTFcW1I for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:47:18 -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 A799B3A18AA for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:47:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4605; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509637; x=1620719237; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=h11G8/jCHYeFof/W5xVDs7VpijraNSaTFUumDlZnK1E=; b=gdlALEvt6WxIoqiaWX4biu36fBybWoZceJtjYfEbN5mi1D9nKSj17iMp kq8y5y5/aRz3La9EEd5sK6a3kS55fBrQwJYkWr+4zE6ylomIe3mXTMYLG JKxK4afduhqeITJYqUvBqAZnkez5JPMuf4gGsE6XiBLj4Kdjo41XMsexO U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATAAClwIdglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBQQMBAQELAYF1gSxWAScSMY1HiG8DnG0EBwEBAQoDAQEdCwwEAQGEU?= =?us-ascii?q?AKBeyY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohVANhkQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDAQEBaQECCAMFCwsYLicwBhMUgl0BgmYhD6g0eIE0gQGEWIR4CgaBOgGBU?= =?us-ascii?q?osKekOCC4ETJwwQgg5RPoJgAQGFLYIrBIFVawZZCwEDHTYgAjkCNDECCAQJc?= =?us-ascii?q?hoPnWqdFYMZg0GBRoRqkysEIYNRkHAtkCOGT5pTknAEXwGEBQIEBgUCFoFqI?= =?us-ascii?q?oFbMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ6OKw0Jg05GhE6FSz8DLzgCBgoBAQMJjDJdAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:GM70x6sojekwXhJBkTl/ZA7f7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35429072" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Apr 2021 07:47:15 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7lFnY004695 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:47:15 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <24E3EBD8-9654-4887-960E-09F3E850B876@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD8BF751-F1C3-40B0-AB1B-10B00B9EBAD5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:47:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <91168ef6-404e-5f24-45ae-ca6cb68caebd@joelhalpern.com> Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org To: Joel Halpern Direct References: <91168ef6-404e-5f24-45ae-ca6cb68caebd@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:47:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AD8BF751-F1C3-40B0-AB1B-10B00B9EBAD5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:54, Joel Halpern Direct = wrote: >=20 > In case I was unclear, I was not objecting to opening the issue. I = was starting the discussion of the issue. I presume Eliot or Brian will = open an issue as they indicated. Already done. You can track all open issues at = https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues. Eliot >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 4/26/2021 10:43 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> On 4/26/2021 10:22 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>> Given that this is to be strategic direction, not tactical choices = or day-to-day operations, it is not clear to me that the RSAB does need = (or even should have) the authority to move a document forward without = the support of the RSWG. If it is that important, they ought to be able = to get more people to participate so that the RSWG engages. If they = can't get necessary work done, then it seems to me we have a problem = with the whole process. >> This WG which really isn't a WG needs to be able to operate = indefinitely, without a WG like charter (e.g. with a defined work plan) = with very intermittent document production. It may go years between = producing a document. Which might mean having to actively recruit new = people with each possible document. Not what I would consider a formula = for success. >> I expect that many (most?) documents will be rather = non-controversial, will involve specific nuances of publication = technology or process that most IETF participants couldn't care to = expend a single read on, and could mostly be farmed out to the paid-for = expert. Providing those for community comment, revision by the expert = and approval by the RSAB would seem to me to be at least the fall back = process. >> I expect pretty much any document in this series to be "strategic" = for some value of strategic. I expect the RSAB and the RSWG to keep = its fingers out of the tactical and day to day stuff (e.g. most of what = John L is doing for us). >> By default, the minimum RSWG consists of the RSAB plus the two = chairs. I expect that to be the typical set of participants as well = except for dealing with some of the hobby horses certain folk are hoping = to ride once this gets done. C.f. Mark Nottingham's document. Once = those are disposed of, I hope for blessed silence. >> I maintain this needs to be opened as an issue. >> (I think the above covers Martin's note as well). >> Mike >>>=20 >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>>=20 >>> On 4/26/2021 10:05 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>> The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence = beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a = consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a = failure of the process. >>>>=20 >>>> Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents = along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of = their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to = gain consensus within the RSWG. And that assumes (and this is not = necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. >>>>=20 >>>> Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the = RSAB from authoring a document, providing it for community comment and = publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in addressing. >>>>=20 >>>> Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. >>>>=20 >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_AD8BF751-F1C3-40B0-AB1B-10B00B9EBAD5 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwYIACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejO5vQf9HIM8F2spSv/Q0ZKMHvyL1HesxRem9XEXVo/KeyykCWjqB9EdCwQeMZNH lsfhWuA9MIgCXXrGVIJBvVt8hENEwi1pe4CstYKobLZO7v76xooj38c1wA3EOoVZ i63IED6thzz/RkLiXA43SlLkZCB5apjRROi4Rc7jbinvDlcBiKOfg+8OZGM2JcvR lRkGN1URvVHrzWaE6HGyfaBFoUvuVMc9xZt4xQNI2duRqmwtyDnmpel51ENu1tdB OOAEkSyIjRhxOuHjXlBACtZ3N5NsgIAfIGsUIFFC/45BnxaeNlDukFq3lXV+yyaO vpknaydpUS3PHaEN7b0/7kKdIiPR1g== =SHKI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AD8BF751-F1C3-40B0-AB1B-10B00B9EBAD5-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:48:43 2021 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 C97833A18B9 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:48:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 MnHlHBYtM-C8 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:48:37 -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 CC2473A18B7 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:48:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2179; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509717; x=1620719317; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=msrYpz8XIDHg9FpkF3N3AnLrLf6fl44SFWynIjHz91w=; b=VJp1OdbESjZhyvhAPsWECa7EvqIVLGy54BqnUHbK3J+o0bBKrB26jFjz zljhyVUz9+QhlepgyGjJ6hlYmPkZm7lDf2PuhjWywq2Cjeq7z3f+kcJ1H e8U8gs0TyAoEuVebLYABQeGLwuGecv+vlyqdjC32bcJrK37fIhXptSm8j A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATAADmwIdglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYIBAwEBAQsBgXWBLFYBJxIxhEOJBIhuA5xtBAcBAQEKAwEBHQsMBAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?FACgXsmNwYOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVQDYZEA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAwEBASFJAggDBQsLGCoCAicwBhMUgl0BgmYhD6g1eoEygQGEWIR4CgaBO?= =?us-ascii?q?gGBUosKekOCC4ETJwwQgg5RPoJgAYR4NoIrBIFVEGFkAQMdJhAgOzYxCg1yG?= =?us-ascii?q?p15nRWDGYNBgUaYFQQYCZRBkFCGT64mAYQFAgQGBQIWgWoigVszGggbFTsqA?= =?us-ascii?q?YI+PhIZDo44iGuFSz8DLzgCBgEJAQEDCYwyXQEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:DdD6Ma6FTVSlc9zkHAPXwErXdLJzesId70hD6mlaQ3VuA6+lvu qpm+kW0gKxtSYJVBgb9eyoFaGcTRrnlKJdzpIWOd6ZNjXOmGztF4166Jun/juIIU3D38pQz7 1pfaQ7KNCYNzVHpOL75AX9LNo62tmA98mT6tv29HtmQQF0Z6wI1W4QYTqzKUF4SBJLApA0Dv Onl696jgC9cncaZNnTPBc4dtXEzue79q7OUFojDx4j5BLmt0LN1JfKVz6FwxwZTzRDhZAl/G StqX2e2oyT99em1xTby2jfq65zpeKk4N5CCMuQ4/JlTQnRtg== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35489304" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Apr 2021 07:48:35 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7mYVk022281 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:48:34 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_05A4C806-F465-481B-84D4-9671D5491016"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:48:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:48:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_05A4C806-F465-481B-84D4-9671D5491016 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80=99ll open an issue on the below. It would be good to know if = others agree with Mike on this point. Eliot > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:05, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence = beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a = consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a = failure of the process. >=20 > Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents = along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of = their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to = gain consensus within the RSWG. And that assumes (and this is not = necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. >=20 > Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the RSAB = from authoring a document, providing it for community comment and = publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in addressing. >=20 > Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_05A4C806-F465-481B-84D4-9671D5491016 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwdIACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejO8RQf9FIyW2oH0V8Cfs2nSbhyJudYZcWerOBvRP5wD932JavPzE/ROFhkjskhz EL7D4v1ekZsdq39X9U9k/s8he5boavM4BTpNYSd4ka+LB9w40dKC6xOJ7MiWjLfH yVwFHPDMm+1owfXsYiXf7SHHJwvqYLfMDLWeSr4iGOHoSp9pMBt1eyUFCEE4U+G2 Nvm4Rb9a6FMhgIcxDB9XGm2rZPibTnxkdOs3mpSflSQfso07VlwZzVX4vlliEQMe MuSFahq73tz/kaIfkYeWk7WuGDQnFm4ue5WJ9kX5US70lEsjUvwdQklA1GF9YnxT e8mPEJ7eoxvbzXErnsV82jOtjQQIQA== =5jjQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_05A4C806-F465-481B-84D4-9671D5491016-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 00:49:15 2021 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 B94C53A18C0 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:49:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 G5DPjiVWvzYR for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:49:09 -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 A9E0A3A18BB for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 00:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2072; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619509748; x=1620719348; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=tjCQXocupNmpekye+T75p1REQmCf+qV3ByQeatUGG6g=; b=UrxZhushNt34tursbrZ857WXiMDjj+p/9AM4Z1+EfRa+wn0+78ulQhfv 2A4r+wO9HG/A3XH159gPRENGbQ1d/KGkqqYjj+G7e2fDbK3A4QSxYdcE0 UPw7PB445faUoLdomLRqXJs0z7u4DGo3w2ntbxBENkzWppb+UazYlOqWG w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAADmwIdg/xbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIFBAgEBAQELAYF1gSxWAScSMY1HiG4DnG0EBwEBAQoDAQEdC?= =?us-ascii?q?wwEAQGEUAKBeyY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgRxE4VQDYZEAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAWoCCAMFCwsYLicwBhMUgl0BgmYhD6g1eIE0gQGEWIR4CgaBOgGBUosKe?= =?us-ascii?q?kOCC4ETJwwQgg5RPoJgAYUugisEgVVxZAEDHTYgO2cKDXIanXmLK5FqgxmDQ?= =?us-ascii?q?YFGmBUEIZRBkFCGT64mAYQFAgQGBQIWgWokgVkzGggbFTsqAYI+PhIZDpcjh?= =?us-ascii?q?Us/Ay84AgYKAQEDCYwyXQEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:yTlVH65g7yo1Lgwm6APXwErXdLJzesId70hD6mlaQ3VuA6+lvu qpm+kW0gKxtSYJVBgb9eyoFaGcTRrnlKJdzpIWOd6ZNjXOmGztF4166Jun/juIIU3D38pQz7 1pfaQ7KNCYNzVHpOL75AX9LNo62tmA98mT6tv29HtmQQF0Z6wI1W4QYTqzKUF4SBJLApA0Dv Onl696jgC9cncaZNnTPBc4dtXEzue79q7OUFojDx4j5BLmt0LN1JfKVz6FwxwZTzRDhZAl/G StqX2e2oyT99em1xTby2jfq65zpeKk4N5CCMuQ4/JlTQnRtg== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,254,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33056140" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Apr 2021 07:49:06 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.154] ([10.61.144.154]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13R7mYVl022281 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:49:06 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <97D20413-BE23-436D-9337-7AE362E40D6E@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B6F3A2C-AAD1-49E9-BFC4-48FA5C5094BE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:49:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.154, [10.61.144.154] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model - msj2 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, 27 Apr 2021 07:49:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4B6F3A2C-AAD1-49E9-BFC4-48FA5C5094BE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Issue 50. > On 27 Apr 2021, at 04:05, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > The first paragraph of section 5.1.2, specifically the sentence = beginning "The sole function..." does not appear to represent a = consensus, and from my point of view is likely to contribute to a = failure of the process. >=20 > Basically, there needs to be a way for the RSAB to move documents = along that they believe are necessary to provide for the operation of = their streams and the overall RFC series, even if they are unable to = gain consensus within the RSWG. And that assumes (and this is not = necessarily valid) that the RSWG is both populated and functional. >=20 > Loud noises (or total silence) in the RSWG should not prevent the RSAB = from authoring a document, providing it for community comment and = publishing it to address a need the RSWG has no interest in addressing. >=20 > Section 5.2.2 must change to admit for RSAB originated documents. >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_4B6F3A2C-AAD1-49E9-BFC4-48FA5C5094BE 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCHwfIACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejO19Af9FMIgqOGkPoteD6oQj319s/O4aKgJ06ZE3Jp9JlqWp96n/a9C1n2A/Kxx vhIvb5K2eYZ/zb+n5wT3bQyBmtgr8oOsgyq+X4wWRXgj8kLARreJk8UvtTh4zbCr vM4AnPQ/1R9AWb6LEjjcefQmgL+rfSiYAfq8oBY0iQTq8ZMRdWQMXBcjl/w+/Mqb L0DUSnm9Y1N3B76LRN5VVXdJbl84DuAGXrNiWp5gXESC5QGll8ZJkS/BTsOSQ+aD Ey7rxj7LLXaIjQMHE1RO3DX6BbFe6JGk8EH/UBBZqFj7EB2LWXGQPsRrxAZI/kF0 pIqU//q+vFw8Y9iIKInhA2l5v01/tQ== =AiXL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4B6F3A2C-AAD1-49E9-BFC4-48FA5C5094BE-- From nobody Tue Apr 27 10:55:47 2021 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 8CCCD3A19E8 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:55:46 -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 OkTB8zlD8zmv for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32B483A19FE for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DF8300AF2 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:55:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ehl7TM6XrY3f for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 125FA300AA6; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:55:34 -0400 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> To: Mike StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 27 Apr 2021 17:55:47 -0000 At the same time, the person that is selected needs to work well with = the stream managers, so they need to be included directly or indirectly. Russ > On Apr 26, 2021, at 10:09 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or = exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other = Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection = criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is = minimized. >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Apr 27 12:59:03 2021 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 5839A3A1E41 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:59:02 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 JsfVvDK7ujVK for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 928BA3A1E3E for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id gv2so20361518qvb.8 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:58:52 -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=IpaR3KBaT6QNwhOLGh9kdoFaaUjhxzwhHBPGqP5XD04=; b=n+AJPYJpdm3xlCyifV836rhZzAxlLi7Jxd1WpKHQ2ltJCROc0SGsxrM4WGTx551dbW S9yTh1O/LOvUeCYG5HnmtobU5UOJB2df0GT5ZiqNd/jhItJWF18PmE5eXth3qmVtsNS1 BkhCdKU6pp5H+sP5isgWHjaNyn9bldIS/WNkv0K/kGdMYs2MsKqvjukIdpwTTpv6WVZU AXBrvGoz3UX9aPCOcmqMPVVxBiG/lcMh/fScaRUKhDMElhLj7LhAhFKrMcxfCHlMA8GD fb8lR4yxOLrxNrYBR1HRxy4c7lU0qAPUJoiF97mH4hnweCc+9GnhoeDtSl8M+vKwTgOW Vh0A== 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=IpaR3KBaT6QNwhOLGh9kdoFaaUjhxzwhHBPGqP5XD04=; b=XRmVI4dtYDW4cfwbMMb0TUDHxcRBgHaWcHIkBtaT7R5rDFn6+0ZcwpIwPKyf8+Wi8h X8ABuqKT/Iva+oTYeIaNSyzmaEEqXMKJw6nIyoH/Z9BHeiHPKXFzcPGyo7S9EKyh5YpD BI5m1z5mtPfkvPbS+QgWHNo/Y+4xJ2A9Jhm4DnoZh5IedQh4piHfKQVFyLhThtdPt3v3 KFDivdNKVjEhERxQql0PpEHCwZgEFFhXsnjVBQSxj35E58j0GqSky4ROah9vvnrGgtT0 wquAgVVJlu6OzyoNkI2uWD/g303h6rPOC7mJM70Eu2xTvsFzbnHdEdzGK48eLNAYoPHW ssZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MBdUAaalb0yUdeptB2LS3OgKEjnLtvwUYurItgOZTDO+u75Ni VFn2UYpgMqY4U+1P2M86d4PK87vSfpOnf4lC X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGtk7ePD7PFbHE1ISTBQI1zR9Fy+Aw4ry3QITAuBTB+6XSU9PEcwReXvTGZXw6AVeSTkKPwg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:18d:: with SMTP id q13mr25601168qvr.60.1619553529376; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-72-83-65-39.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.65.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a29sm725628qtd.15.2021.04.27.12.58.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Russ Housley Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:58:47 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 27 Apr 2021 19:59:02 -0000 On 4/27/2021 1:55 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > At the same time, the person that is selected needs to work well with the stream managers, so they need to be included directly or indirectly. > > Russ Yes!  I'd probably leave them off of the search committee, but I would probably arrange for interviews between the RSAB and the various candidates with the search committee present. Mike > >> On Apr 26, 2021, at 10:09 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> >> Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is minimized. >> >> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Wed Apr 28 01:12:46 2021 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 B123F3A1F7C for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:12:44 -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 Si4TPGF4n4Oh for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:12:40 -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 41C7F3A1F79 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee707b3001d4bb174bcfd5a61.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e707:b300:1d4b:b174:bcfd:5a61]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lbfIv-0003PP-Ke; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:12:17 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:12:16 +0200 Cc: Russ Housley , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1619597560;2d6f3a49; X-HE-SMSGID: 1lbfIv-0003PP-Ke Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 28 Apr 2021 08:12:45 -0000 Hi Mike, Why do you think the stream manager should not be part of the search = committee? Mirja > On 27. Apr 2021, at 21:58, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > On 4/27/2021 1:55 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >> At the same time, the person that is selected needs to work well with = the stream managers, so they need to be included directly or indirectly. >>=20 >> Russ >=20 >=20 > Yes! I'd probably leave them off of the search committee, but I would = probably arrange for interviews between the RSAB and the various = candidates with the search committee present. >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> On Apr 26, 2021, at 10:09 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or = exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other = Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection = criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is = minimized. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=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 Wed Apr 28 01:25:16 2021 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 785053A1FD9 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:25:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 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_NONE=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 JfXjkVC2QxXW for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:25:09 -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 530EF3A1FD8 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:25:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2714; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619598309; x=1620807909; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=YesVgP6TGTbLKvlcFIqDWq1OqAAUsTgyxTG8r0pbEzQ=; b=fvnzafswS0UkqPlgLIuMIEl8J7qTKsX1OgHQvilQBkhDJbS/C8/jtQAN E0/YLqrW1gL9bg6bWb0nIQlwzOU+GOSRPndNwCrSAeATM54BJ+OKB0PXe mUEiUBF37tyfgqAC9V5ioIUSurf0XinsWCqjxWgVwJBwkZuE/+saXgIN6 w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AJAAD8GolglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBRQQBAQELAYMhVgEnEjGNSIhymnKBfAQHAQEBCgMBAR0LDAQBAYRQA?= =?us-ascii?q?oF8JjYHDgIEAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFUA2GRAEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMBAQFsBgUFCwsOCi4nMAYTgnEBgmYhD6dleIE0gQGEYYR1CgaBOgGBUowEQ?= =?us-ascii?q?4ILgRMnDBCCXz6CYAGFLoIrBIMuU1txEVNEkRSMWZ0VgxqDQoFHmBkFIZREk?= =?us-ascii?q?FC0dgGEBQIEBgUCFoFbAi+BWzMaCBsVOyoBgj4+EhkOjjiIa4VLPwMvOAIGC?= =?us-ascii?q?gEBAwmNDwEB?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:pljAHKhHMwPOzMYkETRtpn3Wa3BQXlgji2hD6mlwRA09T+Wzna mV7Zcm/DXzjyscX2xlpMCYNMC7LU/02JZp7eAqXIuKcxLhvAKTRr1KzYyn+DH4Hj27y+g178 ddWoxzEsf5A1Q/rcuS2mSFOvIhxNXCz6yyn+fZyB5WIj1CUK1r4wdnBgvzKCQfLzVuPpY3GI GR4cBKvVObCBEqR/6mDXoIVfWrnbP2va/hCCR2ZSIP2U2rhTOs5KWSKWn94j4uFxVS3Lwl7W /J1yv+66nLiYDc9jbsk0nO8p9RhNztjuFmOfXJoM0UJjLw4zzYA7hcZw== X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,257,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35533819" 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; 28 Apr 2021 08:25:04 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.165] ([10.61.144.165]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13S8P4Kk016935 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:25:04 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4856767B-1DB9-4410-A4B2-9A175507A074"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:25:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org, Russ Housley To: Mirja Kuehlewind References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.165, [10.61.144.165] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 28 Apr 2021 08:25:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4856767B-1DB9-4410-A4B2-9A175507A074 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have a different question that we should ask about anything that goes = into the doc: Do we need to decide the question of who is on a search committee at = this stage? Eliot > On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:12, Mirja Kuehlewind = wrote: >=20 > Hi Mike, >=20 > Why do you think the stream manager should not be part of the search = committee? >=20 > Mirja >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 27. Apr 2021, at 21:58, Michael StJohns = wrote: >>=20 >> On 4/27/2021 1:55 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>> At the same time, the person that is selected needs to work well = with the stream managers, so they need to be included directly or = indirectly. >>>=20 >>> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >> Yes! I'd probably leave them off of the search committee, but I = would probably arrange for interviews between the RSAB and the various = candidates with the search committee present. >>=20 >> Mike >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Apr 26, 2021, at 10:09 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or = exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other = Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection = criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is = minimized. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> Rfced-future mailing list >>>> Rfced-future@iab.org >>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_4856767B-1DB9-4410-A4B2-9A175507A074 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCJG98ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNLBwf7B5XazIvy/IYUYkPRKmHTR5gq/edL56F9dF3VZ5bX96Vd5XyftWJljHWv gZUaWNTKOJL0poA+JubHcnPagNWluHumBwxduxzeliB1InG3jc5MFYUsEi0KQ9DB +mQh4bZrLudIaRhYaaSMz8zmQtXPgXLQ5ZWH/mtpl3FAIJk18woz9AJoaSUd05am 2nB3gpdoOel8hzx31dStBEkAJbcbMJby4XmarxPNF6dh8ueemBTdoIwKfIkDdzQd ED9UezoGqXnIT8HuLqklOmAudvUfxoe9L7X8C9DSCNwaAzMFqgdoX5VKCY06nCa4 pO6Q1LARhk8sNb6YOf8ERIoFzd3gDg== =sQIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4856767B-1DB9-4410-A4B2-9A175507A074-- From nobody Wed Apr 28 01:52:02 2021 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 F016E3A20B8 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:52:00 -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, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.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 bxcaEY3AyOka for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1400118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.140.118]) (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 E13343A20B7 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:51:55 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XkYDhSX/Zb7EArlqHlkuOBTNGijcBWHz5EyqlARJvDsVRAGNc9lriZy2TDUPBnQKjI1BBK3+H2grqXCm4mrJiefOrx/iSydBK9Gs8fFcBKynTeJDdNU1oscWc2P2oygdUOpO5L3OChzU+LhdrVaSLy3EaGMt83mJmgSLIr0i+KoSvnFcaB4eZPtlG262PSJv9Nt5ia0rnzSouIz1mavoImARH/w5ps2CJGTcTpenvsL0ACz8JnOOUIis8LUicy7LUJzOAVrTpAzvppNI4/kxbtssW+KVsDdNY40EX53RSjVFMkF6YVab90CCII6AW0aHmQVmUgBDNN1pif7gjYM9NQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wboyavYbFFpXpVmDDgoLn/mAlFc306bmJLWQFA2U9ls=; b=oRbmCfM12ESJbuHaXqDrNmd6/yfdHSdIwCtXMfid1bhJoZZ8ahFysNQNon/ANhjLpRx69n6WLYSlkxtxfmHMbp6elKwwDi+C5isaKWj6Q64Gd5vo5jt1kh80mYaG+xEHKiEjxodzZRWN660dkknBYqcyanufl+7DiwaOSufGjACTsc6zvCBvAA8cz+McFpmtA3SphUDmS79n86/tHRR7bsvqDokGW558CPjdoc0eTl2mkcwwSZEGr399r3uzPomVel+pyzO0b2MJrhsgzRJWRoY7pihTfirmyWAjiJVx8Cjp0mzua0yax1VIBZ9lm+ItV0ROgZpZyCW92sDaii5LeQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wboyavYbFFpXpVmDDgoLn/mAlFc306bmJLWQFA2U9ls=; b=Krr3h9RraGHVEqW73F9A4UjaxuPnGd3o093/SiIw8jQ6axBDKqMq1eqjkLvurYiEZJKJuYOIhYJUkQe5m137l4sYN5lHCocmicgeA4rI7Slwd3m4Ap/Hyd5SHtxVd3zqtK2WNBkv2JGqO+ytqOoDYJlzG7stT7bduvRoDFRf9yU= Authentication-Results: nthpermutation.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nthpermutation.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:8053::7) by TYXPR01MB1645.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:403:f::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4065.25; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:51:52 +0000 Received: from TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5996:7da1:39fe:eca2]) by TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5996:7da1:39fe:eca2%4]) with mapi id 15.20.4087.026; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:51:52 +0000 To: Eliot Lear , Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Russ Housley , Michael StJohns References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:51:50 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [133.2.210.39] X-ClientProxiedBy: TYCPR01CA0103.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:405:4::19) To TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:8053::7) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [133.2.210.39] (133.2.210.39) by TYCPR01CA0103.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:405:4::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4065.22 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:51:52 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 0f12cd04-f60c-4b4c-4fea-08d90a22de2e X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: TYXPR01MB1645: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39840400004)(396003)(136003)(346002)(366004)(376002)(16526019)(26005)(186003)(2616005)(2906002)(786003)(110136005)(36916002)(478600001)(5660300002)(52116002)(53546011)(31686004)(6486002)(956004)(54906003)(16576012)(66476007)(38350700002)(38100700002)(8936002)(31696002)(66556008)(6706004)(86362001)(8676002)(66946007)(316002)(4326008)(3940600001)(45980500001)(43740500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: =?utf-8?B?bWhWblpzMGY5Zkd4SFBUSVNrM1FMVlZscjg5bGFpUTFvN3NMTmNqcHZYTmVN?= =?utf-8?B?VnVBb0Q1c1o1ZHA5T3A1TGpkbjQ3UllhdkI3YkpRSHY1ZVlETXRnTThKQlRo?= =?utf-8?B?WVYzcmxDYm5hSlpYVVkxOXpoVzdPUHRYczZXUkpkcndDY1U0S3REVUVSeDEz?= =?utf-8?B?REx0UkUxQ0g5S2lxd3g4cGVSNHIvd0Z5a0hMSUdKQVhPUXhiM2NrVkc4WmJw?= =?utf-8?B?MHpEL3VWeXgvd2xnK2xrRU5pdlNUR29vNjZwSHZOV3IramhJV1NsUVhFYmxT?= =?utf-8?B?YlJyeVZmNTY1R0xvSGNsZkxhRjQzcS94MVR4UmljMU4zOTMyeUpOQ3JIcFNl?= =?utf-8?B?aExDNWkrQ0s4aVYzMGJKTFcwc0NMV0RKZEN5UkluV2FFNng3VndhbkluUXRm?= =?utf-8?B?MnNXZE5NbDhnNFdWQmJWcU9pVnNkT2F3OFZkTW5jOFdpVG12aEwzUGxFUDV2?= =?utf-8?B?M3d6Q1RSbUhaekl6azI5S0JHaTMyTGJLRHJ4OW0rZHlHUFR4L25FYjlhdm95?= =?utf-8?B?L0t6QjBLZ0tqdkZsVHhWNEhNd3lzdGZnOWFUQkhZdTNHa1E0eEVDR2d1eXR5?= =?utf-8?B?Vy9iM2ErSWowUllsMmZESnJnM2ZhVXlhdVVHeElDM0RxeUpLbldwcUlDcFBN?= =?utf-8?B?SXBRT01oYlBiTnRPVXhmRFhLZ2dlMnBrUG41Tm43ajE2Y1g5T2l1ak44cjVv?= =?utf-8?B?RG9HeWhsN3h0ckhUSWh2bExUWHhtVzA5aXBZS1FjbEphcnhQSXJ1T0NYWno3?= =?utf-8?B?b2UxVitMdkdUc3R3by83K0ZrZVpMT3hJUnJ1MUlJSmRwK2RVK29OR0JkUkVz?= =?utf-8?B?L3pkUFJYZjZLRzZtYXFnUWVtY1ZyVi81ZlJKZ1pQOWJzbzgzOTR0S3FGQlRr?= =?utf-8?B?amJabm8vV2RsTWlHTUFWVXkrbHN3alA2R1Fjcm1VN0U1UzFOVG9KakQ4VWNm?= =?utf-8?B?SCtHUFpocmYwOTd4eDFFOHRJS1E1UnlDS1J0UFc2SzNxcUJaK0hOeTRNeU16?= =?utf-8?B?Yk5xMnRURlV4SlQ0eTZnN0lvNzM3SUw2WjlWQ1QrSU9SRnRRSjhKMlljY2xq?= =?utf-8?B?Rkd0K2c4SjhjSmpoRnUwWG5tY1VFT0ZGYlVqbHJnbWVPVS9PWFU0VVoxcXU5?= =?utf-8?B?VnYzeW9qR1dvV0RPUmFZeGt5bU9pK0YvUFg3K2MzdjJQY1FkZ1JQRGUwVTJT?= =?utf-8?B?WVhOTDlrck1pb1hpWGV3akNBVEJUWEVSVW1qalI2S2lObzU1TFZ4YlllV2ph?= =?utf-8?B?L3h0em9wQmFnU1JocE0yTDBIcVVnY2M4WWJxZHJsNDhhZmU3QUZHVHNxR0dk?= =?utf-8?B?dW43M0pCS1dOVk00VGcvdXhLTnRWVFdYbm5CYVpCVFlUaXAvTG55M0p1TDBw?= =?utf-8?B?R3A4ajhxMHB5UG5QaVhOcFdyR1ZpVzU2d1BFMFc3WEtPUWdWdzByUk13c2Iy?= =?utf-8?B?d1drcTI4Z2RNa2pPd3RUeHBRNHZiZzloUmFVd29qMUJoQTJZZHE0dnkxTHlq?= =?utf-8?B?VGZWajA1bHg5VG52czlhWlVXWnlkRmdCWEpVNmVDVWtDeDd2R3Y1U0tFeURL?= =?utf-8?B?YUVpODBNM1o2akFEVmROSldVSUJ0cXpuV09raTZ6MlAwajczWWpMRy9UL3VS?= =?utf-8?B?Y1FrUEFNRGFkZ3JzSTd3MU9jbjJkK0N6SjQzN3lQNTRnL1UxQmZDenF3bEdu?= =?utf-8?B?U0JRTklkK2JQMGNNNHRjTThBaHNrS2RQOGZENko5UStaNVp6c01SYmRUY1ls?= =?utf-8?Q?C+jsr/PScydT3VA7SySZTWmPSFM0LHnL9BKzHPn?= X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0f12cd04-f60c-4b4c-4fea-08d90a22de2e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: TYAPR01MB5689.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2021 08:51:52.3911 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 1MuYjhUYsGdfeMIsrubjv2cXWvantEILrEmXsCZN4QEi8pyPZoxjf0kyHOBLfZM5SzECI3tFrdXnXEXnA4tYmA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYXPR01MB1645 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 28 Apr 2021 08:52:01 -0000 Hello Eliot, On 2021-04-28 17:25, Eliot Lear wrote: > I have a different question that we should ask about anything that goes into the doc: > > Do we need to decide the question of who is on a search committee at this stage? If by "at this stage", you mean the next few weeks, then I'd answer with NO. I guess we should first have a better description of the job itself. If by "at this stage", you mean the current overall process (which you co-chair), then I'd tend to answer with YES. But some good arguments might be able to convince me otherwise. Regards,   Martin. > Eliot > > > >> On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:12, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> Why do you think the stream manager should not be part of the search committee? >> >> Mirja >> >> >> >>> On 27. Apr 2021, at 21:58, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> >>> On 4/27/2021 1:55 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>> At the same time, the person that is selected needs to work well with the stream managers, so they need to be included directly or indirectly. >>>> >>>> Russ >>> >>> >>> Yes! I'd probably leave them off of the search committee, but I would probably arrange for interviews between the RSAB and the various candidates with the search committee present. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 26, 2021, at 10:09 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Section 6.1 - Composition of the search team. Explicit include or exclude of any of the RSAB, the RSWG participants or chairs? Other Nomcom selected folk? The process needs to be fair, and the selection criteria should be such that bias on the selection committee is minimized. >>>>> From nobody Wed Apr 28 02:02:42 2021 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 E5BC63A210D for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 02:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_NONE=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 whcfXlPjX4_x for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 02:02:35 -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 B73E43A2109 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 02:02:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3365; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619600554; x=1620810154; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=81UbgI7mudzhdlrXTWYD+si7IbTLVb9iJyUA1iTSjQY=; b=FAOaBwZkKbYxfrOPriQxqspaU0uVokdV92Tg6cjjAMSy+GI9/BZlcqLC DodiHcZBzG4i7eUS7YEquh+0QzPUXeea3npLDVk3pgw3qCyZYL4p4Li/S sUl3yosmZSRFM6WV0R/C2wi609kWj6CZu7vlobRM/G3jBPBYzhw1S2AvE 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAAA7JIlglxbLJq1aDg0BAQEBAQEBAQUBAQESAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wMBAQGCAwYBAQELAYF1ggIBJxIxhESIJGCIcAOacoF8BAcBAQEKAwEBNAQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YRQAoF8JjQJDgIEAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFXYZEA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAwEjUQUFCwsYKgICVwYTgnEBgmYhp3d6gTKBAYRhhHUQgToBgVKEF1KHG?= =?us-ascii?q?0OCC4E6DBCCXz6HWTaCKwSBZYEJFioyERmBJxsBDQQaDWGdfJ0VgxqDQoFHm?= =?us-ascii?q?BkFIZREkFC0D2iEBQIEBgUCFoFUOIFbMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDo44jW9HPwMvO?= =?us-ascii?q?AIGAQkBAQMJjQ8BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:NhAQkql9dSwQHqPvvrnhfM9BGR7pDfKu3DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwvc rGpoV56TbfjjENVHY83e2RIaXoex/h3LN8/IV5B9afdSb8vm/AFutfxKvkhwbtAijvstNavJ 0BT4FbBMfrBVZ3yeb2iTPUL/8FwN2KtJ+lnv3fyXAFd25XQppt5Qt4FQqXe3ceLGJ7LKE0G5 aG6s1MqyDIQwVzUu2AGnIHU+LfzuekqLvaZ3c9dnwawTjLqTup7bLgeiLouis2Yndo3aoo93 TDnkjf4Kiu2svLrCP05iv084lcnsfnx594IPG0zuIRKjnql2+TFeNcZ4E= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,257,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35535189" 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; 28 Apr 2021 09:02:29 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.165] ([10.61.144.165]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13S92SJY014923 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:02:29 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: <982A13BE-708F-4174-94F1-910E5F174C24@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B697B6D3-9069-481D-862D-35949D2A8460"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:02:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind , rfced-future@iab.org, Russ Housley , Michael StJohns To: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.165, [10.61.144.165] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 28 Apr 2021 09:02:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B697B6D3-9069-481D-862D-35949D2A8460 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Martin, > On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:51, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst = wrote: >=20 > Hello Eliot, >=20 > On 2021-04-28 17:25, Eliot Lear wrote: >> I have a different question that we should ask about anything that = goes into the doc: >> Do we need to decide the question of who is on a search committee at = this stage? >=20 > If by "at this stage", you mean the next few weeks, then I'd answer = with NO. I guess we should first have a better description of the job = itself. >=20 > If by "at this stage", you mean the current overall process (which you = co-chair), then I'd tend to answer with YES. But some good arguments = might be able to convince me otherwise. I will present my view of both sides of this argument, but it is = obviously for this working group to decide how it wants to proceed. We can say, =E2=80=9Chere is how the search committee will be formed, = here would be its members, here is who they shall consult, here is the = voting process by which they will decide, here are the decision criteria = and their relative weights.=E2=80=9D On the one hand, when we are specific, there is no room for confusion as = to what will happen at each stage of the process. On the other hand, = that doesn=E2=80=99t guarantee, and may not even increase, the = likelihood of a good outcome. To get all of that stuff right would mean = that we fully understand the nature of the role and that either that = nature is fixed or our successors are committing to a revision of the = process from time to time to reflect changes. We would also have to be = able to amongst ourselves agree that we have all of this right, based on = the experience of having hired precisely ONE RFC Editor somewhat along = these lines, with people differing as to the quality of that experience. On the other hand, we can trust that the LLC will be mindful of all of = this, and will form a search committee along general parameters to meet = the needs of key stakeholders, including the streams, as well as perhaps = others. The LLC could absolutely get this wrong. At that point, our = successors might decide to further refine the process. My personal bias is to provide those we empower with latitude to = navigate these sorts of situations, but that requires trust, something = of which we seem to not enjoy an overabundance. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_B697B6D3-9069-481D-862D-35949D2A8460 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCJJKQACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNddQf/cx6vh6d4IAz+CtUm7V74eNufnTWrip8XHSc/UzfDA3HYIdwg003NacrO v1B0FLLliGMNHd2BYu+rW7v2gdlbFY6RfaeeCXAjhr55IZMJOvqxm4NXTSlCUwNx JJVeaSfYZwcN7ZZkcAsPSNEhvnzlvoxB3WRpavNQ8/wHOdF+8017ovqLlHbrTcyq TOXT/obkf1oq+/kIgQxbGupEO6MQmylN3BfBdEmxs/x60eFzwGka2ONuIb1Xx8p9 CfsBDjCfGBJIaeu534PelA53W+OWZ6siqUG3w+yoKn9ouWF14GABWHnfHfS77sk+ K4uf2viOnwJLjHSaLAzw4se06bfqAA== =r7V0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B697B6D3-9069-481D-862D-35949D2A8460-- From nobody Wed Apr 28 16:00:42 2021 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 4564F3A2415 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:41 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 ttCZkCcYtAA4 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (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 E1DCD3A241A for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id j6so5395552pfh.5 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:36 -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=zQMX4dvF3VxPFT51dmrYjb8lkL4YkPWwm7+Kjo61Z1A=; b=tD2v4qXgvuXQ/cbxX3FltZOXOUlgVi4xWtFNokg3ssZ+ZKnKRCpMm9o3ESKhSbL2iC lDM72ZErPT/A9r7jdJOnZuWT6OovmWU+1faE/dAxnThEPqa0HL6puP2nXUDyRnr8fzKj RM7EYzWUv7gw8jW29LwSpX29eKYaAyaIFxGNc/6FsPgg/UqEQYXOL6XksBCm1Nio8nSK N4Bwp066Q3H14lTeE11wNwe+Kv7ljP+h/neGxN1VeM0f7FofNx/w+4TxQW/eqYurqWOE pCkTVTkhQcXdp3F+YeVFzLT0TRKan4RKAWWZxNbUKv6cXTntz9a99dsLF+48EGJ3zYYZ P4Qg== 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=zQMX4dvF3VxPFT51dmrYjb8lkL4YkPWwm7+Kjo61Z1A=; b=LBxbO1A79LuWw9vIJoHllfDYmq0IQ6BcklVfg1GmEhwQlU2IWXuK/Pjd8jgJt4KEMq 7Bonkh35gKLnZhBOtnecPrRxd6LlrRPorAb7+9exCEwwuX2aHbBGdJyjzqoNN9o8SYKD q0gws/n7Vzdxij6PgR6v/v/QknHtRRWTdh6sZvis6nHDY1jMZvQW1i7CEA8G919/S8iO Q/P1kLTRH6YnGIRty15c++21z5kS8jfHvRvtb/mNsn0qQHqrCBVkueYg9yd71UBIspjO G5c2+29GrDXVrUHdYUs1gIQDzyKw47I9dTjvoVEG5xd/iLdgAM7/2KONBsjmfZDKpa8x pOSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KNXdOcyP5C2H1b5wcXU0wm1FT3E0SbQKhALlOV4jC4fcw5c+D wM9zrO0/I8pfnz1vfPn+/xHQrJ6TzXGndA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxB+0dSnV1sd1KQ0iRFxnBNplJAJurYYJ8ocaDs4zXwje6mT9xn9gPc6mvVr8LXv4nCvx4R/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1a12:b029:272:bfa6:867f with SMTP id g18-20020a056a001a12b0290272bfa6867fmr23475525pfv.6.1619650835902; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x90sm5953879pjj.55.2021.04.28.16.00.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Russ Housley , Mirja Kuehlewind , Michael StJohns References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> <982A13BE-708F-4174-94F1-910E5F174C24@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:00:32 +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: <982A13BE-708F-4174-94F1-910E5F174C24@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 28 Apr 2021 23:00:41 -0000 Eliot, >> My personal bias is to provide those we empower with latitude to navig= ate these sorts of situations, but that requires trust, something of whic= h we seem to not enjoy an overabundance. I tend to agree, so I think we should focus more on defining the RSE/A ro= le, and then simply writing general requirements about the search committ= ee (who constitutes it and which interests are represented). If we can't = trust the person who constitutes it, we are in very deep trouble anyway. = (Previously, RFC8728 put the RSOC in charge of the search process, but ga= ve no details whatever.) Brian On 28-Apr-21 21:02, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Martin, >=20 >> On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:51, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: >> >> Hello Eliot, >> >> On 2021-04-28 17:25, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> I have a different question that we should ask about anything that go= es into the doc: >>> Do we need to decide the question of who is on a search committee at = this stage? >> >> If by "at this stage", you mean the next few weeks, then I'd answer wi= th NO. I guess we should first have a better description of the job itsel= f. >> >> If by "at this stage", you mean the current overall process (which you= co-chair), then I'd tend to answer with YES. But some good arguments mig= ht be able to convince me otherwise. >=20 >=20 > I will present my view of both sides of this argument, but it is obviou= sly for this working group to decide how it wants to proceed. >=20 > We can say, =E2=80=9Chere is how the search committee will be formed, h= ere would be its members, here is who they shall consult, here is the vot= ing process by which they will decide, here are the decision criteria and= their relative weights.=E2=80=9D >=20 > On the one hand, when we are specific, there is no room for confusion a= s to what will happen at each stage of the process. On the other hand, t= hat doesn=E2=80=99t guarantee, and may not even increase, the likelihood = of a good outcome. To get all of that stuff right would mean that we ful= ly understand the nature of the role and that either that nature is fixed= or our successors are committing to a revision of the process from time = to time to reflect changes. We would also have to be able to amongst our= selves agree that we have all of this right, based on the experience of h= aving hired precisely ONE RFC Editor somewhat along these lines, with peo= ple differing as to the quality of that experience. >=20 > On the other hand, we can trust that the LLC will be mindful of all of = this, and will form a search committee along general parameters to meet t= he needs of key stakeholders, including the streams, as well as perhaps o= thers. The LLC could absolutely get this wrong. At that point, our succ= essors might decide to further refine the process. >=20 > My personal bias is to provide those we empower with latitude to naviga= te these sorts of situations, but that requires trust, something of which= we seem to not enjoy an overabundance. >=20 > Eliot >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 29 07:29:43 2021 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 041D63A08D4 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:29:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 T5VEDvmHfTqD for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:29:38 -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 D23F23A08BD for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4375; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619706578; x=1620916178; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=BuueGra3Zjx/YU2QV3EsNKnFZnrr4ipAP+exUftARAw=; b=GjyNm24UmXyETfiCXbkWIhp+pzIxlCYQTF4t2dnwe9WjWhk5QJc51YQP J6mmuxFt5VE5RwnK9CB09KHpeqHhCSYi/IXaY15vz4IpPFrk4u8UKiThw VcInB8gONEAcqp7SGeHk+VmbzOPLtYJCJIDfMDq1D1pBNNBU0DyUtnCLH E=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BgAAAxwopglxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAYIXgXaCAgEnEjGERIkEiHIDijOSRAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGEUAKBfCY4E?= =?us-ascii?q?wIEAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFXYZEAQEBAwEjUQUFC?= =?us-ascii?q?wsYKgICITYGE4JxAYJVAw4hqQB6gTKBAYRhglwNghcQgTqBU4QXUocbQ4ILg?= =?us-ascii?q?RUnDBCCXz6CHoU7NoIrBIFlgQkWKiIQCQgZgScbAQ0EGg1hkGKNIpw8W4Mag?= =?us-ascii?q?0OBSJJehUEFIYNUiwmFbpBRpEOPVGiEBgIEBgUCFoFrIYFbMxoIGxVlAYI+P?= =?us-ascii?q?hIZDo44jjY/Ay8CNgIGAQkBAQMJjQ8BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:VENes68S/oqvlbf2kRduk+BaI+orLtY04lQ7vn1ZYxY9SL36q+ mFmvMH2RjozAsAQX1Io7y9EYSJXH+0z/9IyKYLO7PKZmPbkUuuaLpv9I7zhwDnchefysd42b 17e6ZzTP38ZGIWse/f4A21V+kt28OG9qfAv4jj5kxgRw1rdK1shj0RYm2mO3Z7SwVcCZ0yGI D03LsjmxObZX8VYs6nb0NqY8H/obTw5fDbSC9DIxYm7QWU5AnYjILSIly/wgoUVS9JzPME92 XI+jaJgJmLgrWc1gLW0XPV4tBtvObZjvFHBMCKl6EuW1LRtjo= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,259,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35589594" 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; 29 Apr 2021 14:29:35 +0000 Received: from [10.61.144.14] ([10.61.144.14]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13TETY7G005907 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:29:35 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4DDAA13-EBF7-4F16-B0C8-E38E858ECA75"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:29:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= , rfced-future@iab.org, Russ Housley , Mirja Kuehlewind , Michael StJohns To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4f644ce8-3fba-6a03-875a-c172bccd1eb7@nthpermutation.com> <5C16D27D-15FD-47EA-9507-39E3888714A3@vigilsec.com> <26677ddc-2557-b1ab-1889-8f8815fd0118@nthpermutation.com> <7EE2377B-9A04-4ADD-BA62-FD9A1EF6226E@kuehlewind.net> <982A13BE-708F-4174-94F1-910E5F174C24@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.14, [10.61.144.14] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model msj3 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, 29 Apr 2021 14:29:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C4DDAA13-EBF7-4F16-B0C8-E38E858ECA75 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hmm=E2=80=A6. Sounds like a volunteer. Please feel free to suggest more = text! Eliot > On 29 Apr 2021, at 01:00, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Eliot, >=20 >>> My personal bias is to provide those we empower with latitude to = navigate these sorts of situations, but that requires trust, something = of which we seem to not enjoy an overabundance. >=20 > I tend to agree, so I think we should focus more on defining the RSE/A = role, and then simply writing general requirements about the search = committee (who constitutes it and which interests are represented). If = we can't trust the person who constitutes it, we are in very deep = trouble anyway. (Previously, RFC8728 put the RSOC in charge of the = search process, but gave no details whatever.) >=20 > Brian >=20 > On 28-Apr-21 21:02, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi Martin, >>=20 >>> On 28 Apr 2021, at 10:51, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hello Eliot, >>>=20 >>> On 2021-04-28 17:25, Eliot Lear wrote: >>>> I have a different question that we should ask about anything that = goes into the doc: >>>> Do we need to decide the question of who is on a search committee = at this stage? >>>=20 >>> If by "at this stage", you mean the next few weeks, then I'd answer = with NO. I guess we should first have a better description of the job = itself. >>>=20 >>> If by "at this stage", you mean the current overall process (which = you co-chair), then I'd tend to answer with YES. But some good arguments = might be able to convince me otherwise. >>=20 >>=20 >> I will present my view of both sides of this argument, but it is = obviously for this working group to decide how it wants to proceed. >>=20 >> We can say, =E2=80=9Chere is how the search committee will be formed, = here would be its members, here is who they shall consult, here is the = voting process by which they will decide, here are the decision criteria = and their relative weights.=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> On the one hand, when we are specific, there is no room for confusion = as to what will happen at each stage of the process. On the other hand, = that doesn=E2=80=99t guarantee, and may not even increase, the = likelihood of a good outcome. To get all of that stuff right would mean = that we fully understand the nature of the role and that either that = nature is fixed or our successors are committing to a revision of the = process from time to time to reflect changes. We would also have to be = able to amongst ourselves agree that we have all of this right, based on = the experience of having hired precisely ONE RFC Editor somewhat along = these lines, with people differing as to the quality of that experience. >>=20 >> On the other hand, we can trust that the LLC will be mindful of all = of this, and will form a search committee along general parameters to = meet the needs of key stakeholders, including the streams, as well as = perhaps others. The LLC could absolutely get this wrong. At that = point, our successors might decide to further refine the process. >>=20 >> My personal bias is to provide those we empower with latitude to = navigate these sorts of situations, but that requires trust, something = of which we seem to not enjoy an overabundance. >>=20 >> Eliot >>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_C4DDAA13-EBF7-4F16-B0C8-E38E858ECA75 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCKws0ACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOBiQf/VAo30GY3Gk8iL8Qsm03Y5I6PyOBxbdCWbCeO1LLeOYQ9p6NcEtDaAywz fRy8XrQz+QlFka+VzTZFnlfpatkVoki5ZzmFBjEPBu7Il0iqJqvqo7Tq6KSrUbcw fmj6kK4Fezg8sk7pWtABZ9CW7Lw7EhuNq1wMNF8fgkiJxmaWx15Nehh3GRuPwf6/ ZNShhWemHpreTKk+ugguvlfhMZtCziRS/eEsgmZxFsdZzPEumTDk2E1SH26KSChT qw2J6kBbW5ouujHOZhjJg9CSor1561rvaVh3KjSNvA1hG7psNiZqwWPR7rGOu8lU 7mko/kb/wnRq1lgbuXC7dOazA+SHFA== =/N48 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C4DDAA13-EBF7-4F16-B0C8-E38E858ECA75-- From nobody Thu Apr 29 11:59:34 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@iab.org Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FF33A13F7; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:59:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: The IAB , lear@cisco.com, rfced-future@iab.org, rfcefdp-chairs@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <161972277173.11056.12062431776734668048@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:59:31 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] rfcefdp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 111 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:59:32 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Eliot Lear, a Chair of the rfcefdp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: RFC Editor Future Development Area Name: Internet Architecture Board Session Requester: Eliot Lear Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 60 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: rum dispatch stir sipcore emu opsawg anima Key Participant Conflict: spring tls secdispatch People who must be present: Eliot Lear Brian Rosen Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Apr 29 16:54:28 2021 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 53A013A18AD for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:26 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 tZ2qH1-ne6N2 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (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 7D18B3A18AB for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id c18so55215420iln.7 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HmxOgDnbn4mwojbjZu2djkfu48HOGMW+Vp9lNT4ScME=; b=DbbZrUJ8q1ztBgwI38m5hic0cmgNNWXxGubi9Nxc0Q+DPHQVmsBQJYPkXvtMukA9IF GltDFDxfCRaNGuze9WNSJAt8yOxQRK2l8+8ju5lix4IrkRYPdxlBpQaaIM2MhTTZvdue vsc+G7kT41OFd8ArlcO3lQKHO0g4HMtHEQLFs= 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=HmxOgDnbn4mwojbjZu2djkfu48HOGMW+Vp9lNT4ScME=; b=muXhlr3xzfEoJyhAPGXgpsLO4I1u0PiHkLRrFXcIunBA8Th/8r3u8x2AV8b18XoRii DGo6XDLSQpvgWfUBQYpkubxokSkZnQ1Yh8QK9vGq7N1X0v9w3dnwmUhoBmhXRIlzVhGa 6rEkKmXA7wxkHCQXy83z/IrsF4pJQrFRD1fTiNtYTv7m5gFikpyAn6vEpsXJLaIalGH4 Dl+rCeVtQh1gawMsC2y6k7h/TTJoqluj9LrIwShqp9yDkHVvvXRpYn+u84O25EFikVf2 CX4hKJNlNXy3PcSUysUdaQKHCtIizDQrO6XTVzbvDJY2s/twxGXpF1NJb1lztcyyxtns iJzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318EuAqI0aHiZpRWFdG+QDurybLUMx3yvKRMHTe/LBesw1E5pBd 7kgs0M44sYF4YalXE0XBgzZ3yg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIWJWwms62SSTeQguBRzbsVEfi+xdt7mJ0nkMJuVTy8dn1UrwSvoYfjhYkMMvYwGDYgWv60w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:501:: with SMTP id d1mr1950271ils.76.1619740461142; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16sm609781iok.31.2021.04.29.16.54.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT) To: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <7fbef1fe-2e5b-3ad7-e416-500c224d2a1e@mozilla.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:54:19 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] ultimate policy authority (was: Re: draft-saintandre-rfced-model) 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, 29 Apr 2021 23:54:26 -0000 Apologies for the delayed reply. Expect many messages soon. I might modify subject lines (as here) so that we can keep better track of the topics. On 4/5/21 1:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and > you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting > points you threw in to help. If it's any consolation, I'm not convinced that *any* parts of the document have rough consensus yet. > As far as I can tell, the following: >   The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies >   regarding the RFC series.  This document specifies such a structure >   through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its >   policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). > is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list.  It has > multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the > authority to change this structure. > I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this > adopted?" which is indeed important. I'm not wedded to that phrasing. What I was trying to capture is that there might need to be some ultimate authority for the policy-defining structure (RSWG, RSAB, etc.) that is being specified in *this* document. Naively that might seem to be the IETF LLC, but on the other hand perhaps there is joint authority held among the entities that name members of the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) - or something else entirely. Whatever definition we settle on might have implications for the appeals process, too. Peter From nobody Thu Apr 29 17:13:43 2021 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 666CF3A192E for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:40 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 0drknJd8gx7O for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 86DB13A1930 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id p11so3612537iob.9 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t4fqLCZlOMe6TtQcA2J/F6BZBPHNDIud1lbbfpWB/QY=; b=dXnCiG0lHFrkU0HIAjDqy/TWudJDU+OMBkyocUz+1R3nVHj+6B09H/Zl35/ZpMxQoN 6BtmvhO0r548wDOLDIokEprNTRQjHPQBFRXQ7yRXqMajO6fc+e4Qhyse9CIjM7JhlIFK W89xWTIIbJh4TFGUbKeaxK4qXYIZbkPBHQrAw= 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=t4fqLCZlOMe6TtQcA2J/F6BZBPHNDIud1lbbfpWB/QY=; b=s6iYTpUwM4piCYq2o9KvCR+GEEsU6rwbl6fgUNUGSsEjj7iBACsL/EQw1HEIqnKJrW o7yyU8gF4eRRhnJuqBq/8sB4AGsIsKyjcAIpA+oOBag3xFvwDkWsDm5cAGsDCF0uGupB NPzs2Z3mJDrJWHecvz1/EYMUjXH1LK9XH6MOPmzgZoalIh3Hucr2DuSEMzI4WOF6cGXd cgL1QkgOMMxiQAPx0hSYR3P53tjRL1rNCnOTzmNelfVm/6e94vW8sBbQAJNOEFSmgPja UgCbYuiOuoUuo+klaODcr3jDkPhLl3rJ0FUXRLQeqYx5FZ7R7e+q3F5/zr6oLISIEjyA N8XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Gk2OS5nOIsopu3TAQ3yblkmx2Syh8ZbahD2zUwA87MlsFBu2v 58RY3JCPOUtCnzWu4wyTSSkE8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxy2M/NcvBKUwRrvfIxNG+O2+RQfW+quL8SOFE6GjQnR9C/c3fajzesv32U8MHFXyv27wtlww== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9496:: with SMTP id v22mr1549943ioj.175.1619741616774; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w10sm78700ilm.38.2021.04.29.17.13.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Brian E Carpenter , Lars Eggert Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:13:35 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 30 Apr 2021 00:13:40 -0000 On 4/23/21 3:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Lars, > > On one point: > >> Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment: >>> 5.1.1. RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) >> >> Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of confusion >> for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational >> discussions, because this group will be significantly different from "real" IETF >> WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other name may reduce >> that possibility for confusion. > > However, I think we should still call it a WG, precisely to emphasise that > it broadly speaking operates according to RFC2418 with a similar notion > of rough consensus. Yes, there will be occasional confusion and a need to > repeat that it isn't an *IETF* WG. I think that's a price worth paying. > > Of course we can qualify the name with "Policy" or "Strategy". But please > don't remove "WG". As editor, I'll update the document with whatever we settle on. Personally, I see "working group" as a generic term and not specific to RFC 2418 (after all, it's a group formed to get work done and hopefully the participants will be dedicated to working together well). Peter From nobody Thu Apr 29 17:20:58 2021 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 2E6CD3A1967 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 y3r-eIiv7TaU for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com (mail-io1-xd44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) (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 B2B063A196A for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id e186so13743818iof.7 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DGx89iubQjvL00hwDIt8SEJRD72GDedRPyLGQCsra18=; b=BkA6cHBnhHKI4W6UCINxa0nmZ47zO2jSS+JhQ2RBhMCt2wGR3epCWVkZe6cnbLwhdX 79kwVVOsO3jSIt0mBT1fpbGyjFfG6NzR6/SuwlRzTHcLj5M6IUTEX/Nw9PbkaF2mxPh0 gX6CsvEptQrvV7Qdj4sjuLbdWy4J+tNMUD3vw= 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=DGx89iubQjvL00hwDIt8SEJRD72GDedRPyLGQCsra18=; b=TNoOinloyr8x1Nu2tCxan/Yedc7UgR1oIvjnlRb8jrnZNdLwglpSM1cO012tWhoxLd 480d3EX9t2Nd42cYgyzV4ZVAOvClyD/2lCAmP/4FpsnKIxniLVyGz3tx3j3PY0r8cWUS w0UwItLesmOqoqKtFiXgz6kZVKffzELOsJcVGfcUVZCW4NFc5SQ/sEiWBzUwNzLPjxEb q/Xdv+DodyYv0R2bFOrUQ9M10dzwuMVd9p8AqbP+S/M+h5e2jH6WFzADxWKvI7vYGrV7 Ftax6euqlOjatKKTK7dOeDtvthVfqGAdw9gQ6/YlZtc6nijD1wVXXXCas8SJcfRAT43n VIOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533g+N+TosJh7NG2oqXxEulbsArG2J92dWEFazEeCRvaIVMmOlbj 5eEpTbwnwK32Ti74iZcoYJfCO079avq6Vo/3 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuic20lZ+dnBsrwfpuntaskuT61pG+O5INZVrxgHJcni2Er5K0xIW0nApSU30EJTYIyBpKEQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:97cb:: with SMTP id k11mr1555652ios.204.1619742049889; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm663024ior.28.2021.04.29.17.20.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:20:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Lars Eggert Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <287b0a81-018b-be7e-bacd-258799257c17@mozilla.com> <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:20:48 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B8700CD-4A49-4180-B4EF-CE70F7D53593@eggert.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model 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, 30 Apr 2021 00:20:56 -0000 On 4/23/21 5:09 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-4-5, at 22:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/ > > I gave this a quick read, below are some initial thoughts. > > Thanks, > Lars > > Section 4, paragraph 2, comment: >> Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC Production >> Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force or >> future policies defined as specified in the next section of this >> document. > > I'm not quite sure what "Continuing publication" is meant to express - can > "continuing" be removed, or else, what does it signify? (Or was the intent to > say "Publication ... shall continue to be handled"?) Yes, that. Will update the text. > Section 5.1.1, paragraph 2, comment: >> The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each >> appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG. > > I can understand why each separately appoints one chair, but why would each then > continue to oversee only the one chair they appointed? Ah, that was an infelicity in the wording. Will fix. > Section 5.1.2, paragraph 4, comment: >> The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows: > > Are there members other than voting members on the RSAB? If not, just call them > members? If yes, who are they? Well, we've had much discussion about who has a vote, and that text was deliberately vague. Once we come to consensus on RSAB membership and voting, I'll clean up this phrasing. > Section 5.1.2, paragraph 7, comment: > Is there an intention for the RSAB to gain additional (voting) members > if new RFC streams are created in the future? I don't think we've discussed that, but we should and I've opened an issue: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/53 > Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: >> 1. If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG. >> Again, all RSAB members MUST participate. > > This is an unenforceable MUST. Probably. We might phrase it as "all RSAB members are expected to participate". > Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment: >> 2. If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is >> approved. Again, if substantial changes have been made, an >> additional call for community input should be made. > > It's not quite clear what "addressed" means. It would be clearer to say "A > proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved." Yes, that's clearer. > Section 6.1, paragraph 2, comment: >> process in confidence. The initial length of service shall be for >> one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five >> years. > > It will IMO be difficult to hire the desired senior professional on a one-year > contract. Whatever we decide on, I'll incorporate in the text. Peter From nobody Fri Apr 30 06:29:07 2021 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 406323A17F2 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-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_NONE=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 xShiXJpHihKW for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:29:00 -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 2DE253A17F0 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:29:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2632; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619789340; x=1620998940; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=2yrtrJzyH7prc8LspYI0p/HpM9rrPMQZ8cyxHPEFB/o=; b=eQvZJ+XrZC8+TLoispa3+uI0NWNrboQiC2O9jOUsyzm3MDBkW3FvU94n o9NkvC8Wo3sBkUDVRvTD5Tii9jgGOvCWorHNO1mojkMaBP/g9iKt8RqEc 3jZUTPIXU/hbxew5sMDe/wDNal7c/LBELgsxH6jQfedCCpP23K0VyLJbJ M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A6AAAlBYxglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCB?= =?us-ascii?q?gQBAQsBgyFWAScShHWJBJ1BiCUEBwEBAQoDAQEqCgQBAYZOJjcGDgIEAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFUA2GOzN0AQg2Aj+DJAGDBw+Yf?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4WeoEygQGDSAGGHwoGgToBgVKFLwGGVEOCC4E8HIIxAYNLBBUDghOCSjaCK?= =?us-ascii?q?wSEAVCgHJ0YgxoEgz+BSIRrkzQFIYNUiwqWQKEqiUWKEgGEBgIEBgUCFoFqI?= =?us-ascii?q?oFbMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDo44g1eKXz8DZwIGAQkBAQMJjQ8BAQ?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:GrK29662QRwVL2sALAPXwCHXdLJzesId70hD6mlaTxtJfsuE0/ 2/hfhz73LJoRsYRX1Io7G9EYaaR3e0z/RIyK0cJ62rUgWjmGbAFu9fxK/jxzGlJCHk7O5a0s 5bH5RWM9H7AVhkgcuS2mDReOoI+sWN86yjmI7loEtFcAcCUcFdxjY8Lg6aF0FsLTM2ZqYRJd 67+tdNoSamdDAxaMm2b0N1OtTrlpnsiI/sZwIACloczDS2yRms6LL8DnGjr3Ujbw8= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,262,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35618299" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Apr 2021 13:28:55 +0000 Received: from smtpclient.apple ([10.61.144.27]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13UDSrWf020988 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:28:55 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D49C78D5-E131-4CC8-A0F7-096E0B2AB5B1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\)) Message-Id: <409E5C71-3D75-4C6F-B143-65BC3367DFA6@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 15:28:53 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.27, [10.61.144.27] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Doodle for next interim 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, 30 Apr 2021 13:29:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D49C78D5-E131-4CC8-A0F7-096E0B2AB5B1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2A67D5B2-9A69-46F8-963C-2E047DC0FE09" --Apple-Mail=_2A67D5B2-9A69-46F8-963C-2E047DC0FE09 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi everyone, Could you please doodle by Tuesday evening for our next interim? Note = the two time slots. There will be no such thing as =E2=80=9Cuniversally = convenient" during summer in the norther hemisphere. https://doodle.com/poll/3upfpic9bte86bse?utm_source=3Dpoll&utm_medium=3Dli= nk = Thanks, Eliot --Apple-Mail=_2A67D5B2-9A69-46F8-963C-2E047DC0FE09 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = everyone,

    Could you = please doodle by Tuesday evening for our next interim?  Note the = two time slots.  There will be no such thing as =E2=80=9Cuniversally = convenient" during summer in the norther hemisphere.

    https://doodle.com/poll/3upfpic9bte86bse?utm_source=3Dpoll&= utm_medium=3Dlink

    Thanks,

    Eliot
    = --Apple-Mail=_2A67D5B2-9A69-46F8-963C-2E047DC0FE09-- --Apple-Mail=_D49C78D5-E131-4CC8-A0F7-096E0B2AB5B1 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCMBhUACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOKLgf9FLzZrRSETvw9UAYVyLWnlYYN/LJMWcwnwKwG6SKtd7MyIyoMIIGDWEIg jjg6awheCQsKn6e/B7JxFTYmZhR0dElBQEiYo+NTrD8HgOHED+Oe85Zlt4DDnKeR z2LFHCEZgSPJiRo8wtFmRxwvDi3J1vDlo27g2nzcljMzXnc0bKtNJ47yeAIQGRUn Q4bGjfCXMYhX2n/bCiRvw4o+NT05EMAWM22diavsInz+YlSi7T7x4XzpGcbtDhYz E3SwiOyptNlyXwo6Y+RVJKiWk2zbbLf3sUq91/4/6S3TaDTtE8oA6blmRaM6FX3R zrp3r7rsYixiols1Yocg5lVCJ7yzSQ== =i3BV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D49C78D5-E131-4CC8-A0F7-096E0B2AB5B1-- From nobody Fri Apr 30 07:39:39 2021 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 5E1303A1A37 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:39:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.697 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.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 9d_tI0Uzl_bg for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603F73A1A3B for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.49.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 13UEdCp7013267 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:39:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1619793564; x=1619879964; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2iYFwHsQJ/ogo4b7LaPRBJ46AOoBow/JqrvxyZyfkcY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=KRR8YLfl8kdAhyhRmqWkWhXmMJvZ+HwguL+dIJfLEk6s8wd/Iu0T1gv75kvTE3o52 5FLTPhsSJuxpjAgQUky9JeLxhlnwwe9C9xlSINMN/22uP6cHZAJdCiTJ56gIkJkUGm O2m4DzT5/XQ2mDHXe0Drc5lKaYoUsZdRVHJzOCbg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:37:21 -0700 To: Eliot Lear From: S Moonesamy Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 14:39:38 -0000 Hi Eliot, I saw your email about a poll for an interim meeting of the RFC Editor Program. I went to the IAB page and could not find any information about the past interims. I have no doubt that you must have posted something about those past meetings. I would have to either search for the information as it is not readily accessible or postpone understanding the discussions until I have the time to locate the interim minutes. The program is expected to use its mailing list to develop and validate consensus. Why is another interim needed? Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Fri Apr 30 07:44:48 2021 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 46D953A1B0B for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.898 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 zUm8lEKFTp_Z for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:44:42 -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 07C0D3A18FB for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:44:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4013; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619793882; x=1621003482; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=YxBi9SiKkQR/C6089P2V+bPKS052iJHLZieKMVbREps=; b=OuJbd9Urg+0AN+Q79xBG7S2exSy86DXYVcr2q/rFmmOPJyDwSZ5ZZdpX GqRpnHvZTNnnZ/cdz+nioT1HNJL/adPtUIgSdVZg9flz0uVha2uMFmlv1 kXS+yhjfJ36UDVSwBMj70tWbIltZSqkwG1d4YU08bz+JITGdPMq11bHaP k=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAAVF4xglxbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIFFAwEBAQELAYMhVgEnEjGNSIhvlFKGKRSBaAQHAQEBCgMBA?= =?us-ascii?q?SgMBAEBhFACgXwmNgcOAgQBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBa?= =?us-ascii?q?IVQDYZEAQEBAwFuCwULCwQIDC49GgYTgnEBgmYhD6cjeIE0gQGEYYUHCgaBO?= =?us-ascii?q?gGBUoUvhlVDgguBPByCXz6CYAIDgSgBEgGDboIrBIQBUxMLX58ciy2Ra4Mag?= =?us-ascii?q?0OBSIRrkzQFIaUeoSqTVwGEBgIEBgUCFoFaATFrcDMaCBsVOyoBggoBMz4SG?= =?us-ascii?q?Q6OOIhrhUs/Ay84AgYKAQEDCYpLLYIXAQE?= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:G6N8Uq8uqBPgMxNRfCZuk+BaI+orLtY04lQ7vn1ZYxY9SL36q+ mFmvMH2RjozAsAQX1Io7y9EYSJXH+0z/9IyKYLO7PKZmPbkUuuaLpv9I7zhwDnchefysd42b 17e6ZzTP38ZGIWse/f4A21V+kt28OG9qfAv4jj5kxgRw1rdK1shj0RYm2mO3Z7SwVcCZ0yGI D03LsjmxObZX8VYs6nb0NqY8H/obTw5fDbSC9DIxYm7QWU5AnYjILSIly/wgoUVS9JzPME92 XI+jaJgJmLgrWc1gLW0XPV4tBtvObZjvFHBMCKl6EuW1LRtjo= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,262,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35620863" 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; 30 Apr 2021 14:44:37 +0000 Received: from smtpclient.apple ([10.61.144.27]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13UEibah005447 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:44:37 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_99E26F59-3F83-4D18-8352-13886B88B723"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\)) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 16:44:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.27, [10.61.144.27] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 14:44:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_99E26F59-3F83-4D18-8352-13886B88B723 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_66688F93-4044-47D1-962B-58DC2E1AFF0F" --Apple-Mail=_66688F93-4044-47D1-962B-58DC2E1AFF0F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi SM, You can find minutes on data tracker here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rfcefdp/meetings/ = Best wishes! Eliot > On 30 Apr 2021, at 16:37, S Moonesamy wrote: >=20 > Hi Eliot, >=20 > I saw your email about a poll for an interim meeting of the RFC Editor = Program. I went to the IAB page and could not find any information = about the past interims. I have no doubt that you must have posted = something about those past meetings. I would have to either search for = the information as it is not readily accessible or postpone = understanding the discussions until I have the time to locate the = interim minutes. >=20 > The program is expected to use its mailing list to develop and = validate consensus. Why is another interim needed? >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 --Apple-Mail=_66688F93-4044-47D1-962B-58DC2E1AFF0F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = SM,

    You can find = minutes on data tracker here:

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rfcefdp/meetings/
    <= div class=3D"">
    Best = wishes!

    Eliot

    On 30 Apr 2021, at 16:37, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

    Hi = Eliot,

    I saw your email about a poll for an = interim meeting of the RFC Editor Program.  I went to the IAB page = and could not find any information about the past interims.  I have = no doubt that you must have posted something about those past meetings. =  I would have to either search for the information as it is not = readily accessible or postpone understanding the discussions until I = have the time to locate the interim minutes.

    The program is expected to use its mailing list to develop = and validate consensus.  Why is another interim needed?

    Regards,
    S. Moonesamy


    = --Apple-Mail=_66688F93-4044-47D1-962B-58DC2E1AFF0F-- --Apple-Mail=_99E26F59-3F83-4D18-8352-13886B88B723 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----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAmCMF9MACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejPeTQgAlNU6cGfJEJC/gBIrimwMlcTomdTu6ZmKbnv/OIWDgX15kl6wJJw7fC/a UWYIXM2alpmft+Tw/1TGGdbJmcN3Cd4z10LXxPXmA9KlV4LLOSOLgqPVf1JbUEJn gRooJldbDjOLYCma2/pzFH268O0z/UVGUiUDsIu5s4wcUSm775urKaKv6T/QHm3v +mlWDoIpnJpM6LdJqeH7TV8EkGBUuAIpjLqLKMH1AgoN62o8SKYbT2UJM+xFKv02 Dh8PVuHzT05erTYlCyafTz3/8INRwStCjytddHk6cUQfr1di7VwmvtMQElrjuKN4 dTK+KnZDnwDgS9phiiv1cqYAjMFBfg== =icEC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_99E26F59-3F83-4D18-8352-13886B88B723-- From nobody Fri Apr 30 08:01:18 2021 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 362D23A1B8A for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_NONE=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=elandsys.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 EU-e2564UKtU for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB853A1D27 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.49.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 13UF0OAM014346 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:00:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1619794836; x=1619881236; i=@elandsys.com; bh=rPB50YXTSPDIfQxmILRkUSUF/mHmyADmBzCP2yJCdNo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pyuzt9GYw/sHWmJhhGugmG4daC2uYu7qjbDWQzsfj+pF7JYbddKLzypKiAHsiA2N/ JYGiegqBXY9cGA1aIYCgS7gc2go3fM/H5TEcmof1HziKcuNWXBQaM7atjDWE0+iFYy qJTslJS0hGM7MJm8YtMNq/0mHK0ZrFlNiptFPbX0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430075706.0bcfa408@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:00:11 -0700 To: Eliot Lear From: S Moonesamy Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 15:01:16 -0000 Hi Eliot, At 07:44 AM 30-04-2021, Eliot Lear wrote: >You can find minutes on data tracker here: > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rfcefdp/meetings/ Thanks for the quick reply. I suggest asking for a link to be added on the program page as it could help other people. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Fri Apr 30 08:08:23 2021 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 63C053A1BB6 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:08:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=akamai.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 NAfktD6HVnWN for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 662CD3A1BB2 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122333.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13UF79a5010989; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 16:08:01 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=RJMH1Q2MOW/wgNbsSJrZeJEZkvJuYVrVeBo//csNBCs=; b=MKWIWOA3TWgz6cp0ypIR/f7bEBnYyCufcAJcw3KW/HHgh37CmjvqpaiyfjViqULs9o4n fbswpf68yPFLxDoHaKpM3zBsgKWT268KK/KqRMoc4K+AQ8222dVnuMfUXbUe3m//SYpe Utj1qeI3OXvzU5kn3v9t3MKhakCD4doJug04EupUdmtAL0zrWoS0CX9yRN5vbR7cKXxy yXXjG2nOfsOFHziKb3HGVI++oSeOPtaxLZn9OI8L9X7fnHNEecfPk5JTw9aCcNHeTULf J0uw3e0ca4hPcKTOrQjDoSxQ1x+LkCE9eINLH+ZmSnY6zRsjXcNm+FM+dEU2NjYGFLCc og== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 388f6k0933-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 16:08:01 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 13UF6QMp027073; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:08:00 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 387cpqd43m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:08:00 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:07:59 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.012; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:07:59 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: S Moonesamy , Eliot Lear CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Interims Thread-Index: AQHXPc6uwm1a2JtLkU+enI0ROCJsIKrNKZmA Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 15:07:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21041102 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-30_08:2021-04-30, 2021-04-30 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=950 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104300103 X-Proofpoint-GUID: UiLJl51bzPtnf1GoFhyxguwblPxqW2xe X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: UiLJl51bzPtnf1GoFhyxguwblPxqW2xe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-30_08:2021-04-30, 2021-04-30 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=896 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104300103 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.18) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 15:08:21 -0000 PiAgICBUaGUgcHJvZ3JhbSBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byB1c2UgaXRzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCB0byBk ZXZlbG9wIGFuZCANCiAgICB2YWxpZGF0ZSBjb25zZW5zdXMuICBXaHkgaXMgYW5vdGhlciBpbnRl cmltIG5lZWRlZD8NCg0KU3BlYWtpbmcgYXMgYSBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudCwgd2UgbWFrZSAqbXVjaCBm YXN0ZXIqIHByb2dyZXNzIGR1cmluZyBpbnRlcmltcyB0aGFuIHZpYSB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 LiAgVGhhdCBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGEgc3VycHJpc2UuDQoNCkkgaGF2ZSBub3Qgc2VlbiBhbnl0 aGluZyBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGludGVyaW0gdGhhdCBoYXNuJ3Qgc2hvd24gdXAgYXMgR0gg aXNzdWVzIG9yIGJlZW4gY29uZmlybWVkIG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0LiAgVGhlIGNoYWlycyBhcmUgZG9p bmcgYW4gZXhjZWxsZW50IGpvYiBvZiBrZWVwaW5nIChpbnRlcmltcyxnaXRodWIsbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0KSBpbiBzeW5jLg0KDQoNCg== From nobody Fri Apr 30 08:13:31 2021 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 800DE3A1BE1 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:29 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 suWkkyJFlmlY for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (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 AFA5E3A1BE5 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id b17so56505394ilh.6 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=izP2or3p9QVXjYFgSUbF+PBUkv0V5xmOU5s/BvwoPZA=; b=BchnNlZrhKgWjR2qTMZXq4oz/Zz7IcOKaStywJGJxypqKIOkQQRYLkhM2NdO+CjOLN uKqBodt95sjHUV/hj336mAAYR2bgeB5wjEwvrRra9LGK0kj5teSzyFrOYeMkCTgScP47 giIUa8FaPtAx3jh52DnO5+OS/qbNMgHCzSOTY= 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=izP2or3p9QVXjYFgSUbF+PBUkv0V5xmOU5s/BvwoPZA=; b=H8czGAkuuzyg8sIQEomVHuhnCECTEA1rvSzwY4vxt3dnOXTi8Ltpq+NIb29NQf1pPB cdNIDSr0TUQa04T5ISybAsC5KHCFApc9Sn0iLlbXcd4O+0AwAfT5mrhr/8f0EFPmANVt IN+4y7o/oOUqCfeFQkzbUW1jWkEft73lCxQVDz43Mn0BREYUBHjm/kfS9xp/KeVRvkqB VBeU06JhzNn/7lRj2IUXr6yXOmF1z7aNJVn7ntvSpoa+SIM2JYTwA+SlMbz+I2TDNSo/ K8vPT6wiC4BAYdvL43iFdDNgBAfpTeswzt6RlWwtOvMi1a4o5fav/u6KPPoC2U6A+1ye sZSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530OJYXMIrNp/RYDQSBuW8GclXFxFLVlAWfQLcokJiWkmy6HMCAe VEbCmznL/hWZOmMbdx4yNGG7PA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiHUHiQrX+nkSEDGLsOx91KPLGJb+2NlSXJ4/fu4g62X1SVX+4TfbiXNOnlq1ab4c8EBUM3w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:d51:: with SMTP id h17mr4426253ilj.134.1619795604916; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y19sm1006907ili.51.2021.04.30.08.13.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:13:24 -0700 (PDT) To: "Salz, Rich" , S Moonesamy , Eliot Lear Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> From: Peter Saint-Andre Message-ID: <5b552d7d-de64-62b3-e5de-7aa33dfa5835@mozilla.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 09:13:23 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 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] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 15:13:30 -0000 On 4/30/21 9:07 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: >> The program is expected to use its mailing list to develop and > validate consensus. Why is another interim needed? > > Speaking as a participant, we make *much faster* progress during interims than via the mailing list. Agreed. However, as editor, I plan to start tracking down open issues more aggressively, so that we can make more progress between meetings. Peter From nobody Fri Apr 30 14:06:07 2021 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 E40173A26F1 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:06:04 -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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 jypiqIS6-9MZ for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (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 50B5B3A26EC for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A841A21AE0; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:05:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: S Moonesamy Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430070154.12c64998@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20210430075706.0bcfa408@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:05:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210430075706.0bcfa408@elandnews.com> (S. Moonesamy's message of "Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:00:11 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Interims 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, 30 Apr 2021 21:06:05 -0000 S Moonesamy writes: > Hi Eliot, > At 07:44 AM 30-04-2021, Eliot Lear wrote: > >You can find minutes on data tracker here: > > > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rfcefdp/meetings/ > > Thanks for the quick reply. I suggest asking for a link to be added > on the program page as it could help other people. Hi, Good suggestion. I've had the link added. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI