On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:00 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > The process/description is getting better thanks. > Yes, agree. > > Using the term liaison will confuse people so be > better to change that. > Yep, it's correct English/French, but it has an IETF meaning that is more specialized. But, see below about this issue and others. > > I still dislike encouraging private discussion of > drafts - that's not really in the spirit of the > IETF at all. > I think it is OK to do this. We could compare it to the way we keep IESG minutes. These people are busy in a similar way, and they need a somewhat private process in order to respect their time. I think the current document is way too long. What we can do is make it a regular IETF design team. I think we did need this detail to figure out what we are doing, but all the extensive explanations are not necessary for the final output. I'm not going to do a PR to delete them, because it doesn't feel good to do a PR that just deletes other people's work. But I would encourage the authors to pick up a red pen with an aim for many deletions. The edit I will suggest is this, to start: "The FATT panel is similar to a design team as defined in Section 6.5 in RFC 2418". I would say that should go. If we start with ""The FATT panel is a design team as defined in Section 6.5 in RFC 2418". Then, a lot of the process details can also go, since I doubt they will be followed anyway. Not because what's there now is wrong, but because they will just do their own thing. We can once again refer to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/ Here, we're interested in the last phrase: "* any design team that lasts for more than a few months should make regular public reports on what they are doing." thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
