On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:57 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alexis:
>
> An answer and a question:
> On 07.01.2026 01:40, Alexis Rossi wrote:
>
> 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"?
>
> Not generally, because for protocol specifications that might not be
> correct. Here we actually use that phrase in regard to RFC 2418 in one
> place, but NOT in another.
>
I see.
> The question: how would the authors expect disruptive behavior to be
> handled in the RSWG, if / when it occurs? This is really the meat of the
> issue.
>
RFC-to-be 9920 as already approved by RSWG says (in the Mode of Operation
section):
The RSWG shall operate by rough consensus, a mode of operation informally
described in {{RFC2418}}.
The RSWG may decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling (e.g.,
GitHub as specified in {{RFC8874}}), forms of communication, and working
methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are consistent with this
document and with *{{RFC2418}} or its successors*.
Absent specific guidance in this document regarding the operation of the
RSWG, the general guidance provided in Section 6 of {{RFC2418}} should be
considered appropriate.
So is your concern that "or its successors" wouldn't be understood to
include "and its updates"?
> Eliot
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
