Subject: [Rfced-future] discussion venues

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 19:42:11 -0600

We already have a number of discussion venues on RFC-related topics: 
rfc-interest, tools-discuss, xml2rfc, etc. Now we'll create another one 
for the RSWG. Which topics should be discussed where? Are there topics 
that are appropriate for rfc-interest but not the RSWG list, or should 
we perhaps deprecate the former in preference for the latter? Do we want 
to provide guidance on this matter in the document, or leave it to be 
worked out later?

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:49:35 +1300

> to provide guidance on this matter in the document, or leave it to be 

I'm sure we'll need [email-masked], with a clearly defined scope
referring directly to RFCxxxx (i.e. draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model).
I would expect that the RSWG chairs will need to do quite a bit of
discussion management as well, until people get used to the scope.

They will need somewhere for discussions that are out of scope, so I'm
sure that rfc-interest@ and the tools discussions need to continue.

No, I think we should not write any text about this in the current
draft. Leave it to the RSWG chairs.

   Brian