On 8/22/24 10:19, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
[SAH] Andy, I'd very much prefer that we discuss changes like this
BEFORE they appear in a working group draft. I don't necessarily
disagree with the suggestions, but if we assume that a working group
draft is a reflection of working group consensus it makes more sense
to discuss significant change proposals on this mailing list before
they're committed to the draft. Now I have to read it very carefully
to make sure I don't miss something important... 😊
Of course, all of it is up for review even in draft form as is IETF
tradition. But we'll try to be better, especially with posting links to
PRs. That said, a lot of these things are quite detailed and need "words
on paper" for actual review.
Some of what the draft proposes requires updates to RFCs 9082 and 9083. They're
full standards. Doesn't that raise a process question that we need to discuss?
I am open to discussion. It should be noted that this was adopted as an
update doc and we noted the transition from informational awhile back.
One of the things we could add is a summary section of the changes, such
as can be found in RFC 9582 [1]. What do you think?
FYI, I did ask Google AI if we could do this, and it says yes [2]. Â :)
More seriously, there are quite a lot of ambiguities in the RDAP RFCs
around extensions as this draft points out and a lesson we all learned
from the list traffic here circa 2 years ago.
I do like the idea of adding additional reviewers and guidance for their
responsibilities. I'll share more feedback after I re-read it all again, this
time very carefully.
Let me know how many "easter eggs" you find. :)
-andy
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9582#name-changes-from-rfc-6482
[2] https://fosstodon.org/@rcode3/113007009405667680
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
