[rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 2 10:46:16 PST 2020


On 02.03.2020 19:19, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
>
>     FWIW, the fact that *you* do not know the answer is kind of scary.
>
>
> I expect that one of the things to come out of the upcoming discussions
> for the future of the RSE roll will be where decisions are formally held
> and what the right level of independence is with respect to the RSE role.
>
>     It's now something like 9 months since I tried to draw attention to the
>     current mess, and there seems absolutely no measurable progress on this
>     issue since
>
>
>   I, for one, am happy you're pushing forward in bringing these issues
> forward.  Unfortunately, the timing of needed v3 changes and the need
> for  this discussion pretty much collided at the same time.  I do think
> it's important that we document these questions to ensure they're
> addressed in due course.  One question left in my mind is the urgency of
> the problems: if we have what seems like split-track v3 specs for a
> while due to operational issues, how does the pain level grow with that
> timeline if not resolved by time X?

Well, we have a growing number of documents published in a "canonical"
XML format that is not canonical and has no documentation.

The more we have of these, the more we'll have to fix later on.

And *if* we decide to actually back out changes to the vocabulary, the
longer it takes, the more painful it will be.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list