On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 9:47 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > This leaves a possible process hole in terms of potentially disruptive > behavior. There is two questions for the RSAB: > > - Does this issue warrant holding draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates > for the RSWG to consider the issue? (Y/N/IDK) > - In case of "I don't know", would you like to discuss the issue? > > One possibility is that we leave this for a short follow-up draft. > > Eliot > > > (Not as RSAB chair, and acknowledging that I'm a co-author)
I'm confused about why we would wait for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes to be published. When we reference an RFC, isn't it already implied that we mean "this RFC and any future updates"? The documents aren't really "linked" in a way that would make me think they should be clustered. How working groups are run should be able to evolve over time without us needing to update 9280 to account for every change, right? Alexis
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
