[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Nov 23 12:18:39 PST 2010

On Nov 23, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 12:47 AM -0800 11/23/10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>> A new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Recommendations,
>> "draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00" is now available.
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview/?include_text=1
>> This document brings together all previous documents and community
>> comment on this topic, and is intended to be the basis for further
>> community discussion.  This highly condensed draft has been produced
>> instead of a -01 update to "draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00".
>> This draft does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on which
>> this specification is based.  Those, and differences from RFC 5620, will
>> be described in a document to be published on 29 November.
> Does the latter mean we should wait for another week before commenting on the overview document? If not, what kind of comments will you find helpful?

What I [*] would find helpful is getting the questions that you (and others) are seeking answers to on the table. I don't want to speak for Glenn but I figure that those questions may help structure the forthcoming document.

What I would also find helpful, if you clearly disagree with a choice made in the document, get your counter proposal with motivations therefore on the table.

We have had some of those questions raised in the earlier on a narrow and broad scope of the position. This document clearly opts for a wide scope. I would be interested in a documentation of the motivation for that choice, specifically in the light of the exchange of views on this list earlier.

I would also be interested why the Oversight Committee got introduced between the plenary presentation and the current document. I haven't seen a lot of public discussion that argued for such major chance.


[*] I as an interested member of the community but also as the IAB member that has been deeply involved in the reorganization process, and as a chair that will need to make sure we work towards a supported decision. And for what its worth, I see my role not as arguing for a specific outcome but making sure all important choices are publicly discussed.


Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20101123/4b1984d7/attachment.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list