[rfc-i] New report, and questions

Glenn Kowack glenn at riveronce.com
Wed Jun 23 09:20:09 PDT 2010

   Responses below:

On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Greetings again. I was wondering why we had not heard about the third RSE report, so I went to <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/RSE.html> and see that it was already posted. Thank you for that, but:
> - In the future, please use the rfc-interest mailing list to let the community know when you put up new reports. It is not terribly reasonable to expect the community to check the page for updates.

This is already my practice, modulo some lag time - see below.

> - The web site says that the report was posted on 20 June, but the report itself says it was posted 7 June. Why the discrepancy?

If I understand you, report #3 was sent to the IAB on 7 June (although the word 'posted' doesn't appear in the report, I think you mean the title and header date).  It was added (posted) to the RSE web page on the 20th.  It's just lag, that's all.  The reports and presentations are exactly as presented.

> - The last paragraph of 2.1.1 says "Once formed, this committee and our general model for RSE committees will be announced on the RSE web page." Could you also send notice to the rfc-interest mailing list when that happens? It is not terribly reasonable to expect the community to check the page for updates.

Yep.  This will likely be done once Craig Partridge has finished setting up the first RSE committee, on "RFC Citations."  I want to see how that proceeds so we can tune the model a bit before highlighting it on the web page.  Please see report #3 for RFC Citations work in progress (Paul's seen that already; this sentence is for everyone else).

Transitional RFC Series Editor

> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list