I think Wes is showing how people who have not been closely involved
might be puzzled by the appearance of this model "out of the blue",
and I think a few light editorial touches could fix this. In line...
On 22-Feb-22 06:57, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Wes and thanks for your review. Please see below.
On 21.02.22 17:33, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Wesley Eddy via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
*Subject: **[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11*
*Date: *21. February 2022 at 16:28:43 CET
*To: *<tsv-art@xxxxxxxx>
*Cc: *last-call@xxxxxxxx, iab@xxxxxxx, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.all@xxxxxxxx
*Reply-To: *Wesley Eddy <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewer: Wesley Eddy
Review result: Ready with Issues
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to
the IETF
discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
I don't have any major concern with this, just a handful of small comments that
are maybe more than "nits", so I selected 'Ready with Issues'.
1) Early the the document the concept of the RSWG is introduced and later
described in detail in 3.1.1. I wasn't sure at first if this was supposed to
be an IETF working group (in the GEN area) or if it was intended to be
"outside" of the IETF. This seems more clear in section 3.1.1, but I would
suggest thinking about if there's another term than "working group" that might
fit, to distinguish it better.
The program did discuss this and came to the conclusion that because the RSWG functions much like an IETF working group, "working group" was appropriate. While we recognized that there might be a small amount of
confusion, this could be easily rectified as people engage in the process.
Exactly right. I suggest that where the text first uses the phrase
"working group" we should qualify it:
OLD:
1. Policy definition governing the Series as a whole. This is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), an open working group that produces policy proposals,...
NEW:
1. Policy definition governing the Series as a whole. This is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), an open working group independent of the IETF that produces policy proposals,...
2) Section 3 says "that pass a last call for comments in the working group and
broader community", but it doesn't provide any hint at what the "broader
community" is supposed to include.
This has been a point of discussion, and is covered in more detail in Section 3.2.3. Perhaps a forward reference would help.
Yes.
3) The RSAB seems very complex and cumbersome for its simple role of basically
confirming what the RSWG outputs.
Since everyone on the RSAB is expected to be actively participating in the
RSWG and would have weight in the RSWG consensus process, it isn't really
clear to my why this is felt to be necessary (to have a separate organization
with extra meetings, rules, etc.). It seems like the RSAB shouldn't need to
do much of anything separately if the RSWG is working properly, and RSAB is
extra bureaucracy. I'm just asking if it's certain this is really wanted and
needed, since it would be harder to unwind later. Maybe the reasoning why a
separate board (beyond the chairs) is needed to approve the RSWG outputs could
be described.
The purpose of the RSWG is to allow an open forum to drive process.
The purpose of the RSAB is to allow a brake on that process if the process is going to break streams. The reason RSAB members are expected to participate in the RSWG is so that when a CONCERN is raised, it is hopefully not a surprise. If you have a way to simplify this explanation in the document, that could be very helpful.
Maybe add a note about "checks and balances" in 3.1.2.1. Purpose.
4) Section 3.1.1.3 mentions that feedback on the RSWG chairs can go to the
appointing bodies, but isn't clear how that would be collected (nomcom tools?).
This is indeed left to the appointing bodies themselves to figure out.
So the text should say that.
5) Is there any issue to be discussed of potential overlap between co-chairs of
the RSWG, RSAB members, and other roles like being on the IESG, IAB, or IRSG,
employees of the RPC, or other roles? Can someone serve as RSWG
co-chair while
also on the IAB, for instance? It seems to me like the people with willingness
and bandwidth to do these things has always been a bit limited in number, so
maybe worth considering. Also, can both RSWG co-chairs work for
the same
company?
This was not specifically discussed. The group may wish to comment.
It's valid point. I don't see what we can do except add a general
recommendation that the appointing bodies should consider potential
conflicts of interest.
6) In general, since this is adding extra things that didn't exist before, it
would be nice if the introduction was more clear about what the problem that
this is trying to solve is. In other words, why is this formality needed now,
when ~10k RFCs have been able to be published without it in the past.
What
part isn't working well enough? The introduction just talks about there having
been meetings, and lists a lot of good properties that are desired, but doesn't
seem clear which if any of these have been lacking or why these changes address
that.
Rather than “what was the problem”, which we did investigate from time to time, we spent more time on what people thought Good looks like, and how they might reconcile their different visions. That's what you're reading.
Right, but an outsider might well have the same question as Wes. I wonder
if we should tweak the motivation in the Introduction. Something like:
OLD:
This document reflects experience gained with version 1 and version 2 of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of the Model while remaining
consistent with [RFC8729].
NEW:
This document reflects experience gained and problems experienced with version 1 and version 2 of the Model, and therefore describes version 3 of the Model while remaining consistent with [RFC8729].
The next paragraph does in fact summarise the problem statement,
but a little obliquely. Personally I wouldn't change it, but if we
made it more direct, the problems we tackled were
- lack of transparency and community input for policies
- unclear lines of authority and responsibility
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
