Eliot called the meeting to order and presented the Note Well statement. We proceeded to Agenda Bashing. There was no bashing of the agenda.
Eliot then presented a slide about how the chairs anticipate the approval process to flow. Please see the meeting materials for details (note that a key typo has been corrected).
The timeline primarily tracks two documents but might be adjusted based on issues discussed below. The two documents are draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfc-model and draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter.
The key points made were that we hope that we can enter community review prior to the November IETF, so that discussions can occur there on any concerns the community might have.
Another point made was that the IAB largely controls the timeline once the group has rough consensus on the document.
Adrian asked if we needed RFCs published in order to move forward. Eliot offered his own personal view that we do not- we just need approval.
Jay mentioned that the laid some groundwork for performing a search for a new RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). Jay also asked that on timelines, we should show the appointment. He presented a timeline that one or two people thought was optomistic.
Eliot noted that the entire timeline was based on things going "swimmingly".
Lars would like to further compress the timeline. That will be up to the IAB. Colin suggested that appointments to the RSAB might wait until March to permit new IAB/IESG members to participate in selection. This will be a matter for each appointing body to consider.
Peter is requested to publish -04 no later than the 11th of October. The astute will note that some issues will close afterwards. We are going to be optimistic about that, in that any candidate text can be published before the issue closes, but an update might still be needed if concerns are raised.
Issues are kept up to date in the issue tracker.
The text in Section 4.2 has been modified, and barring further discussion, the issue will close on October 6th.
The name currently being consideder is RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). There was no further discussion. Barring additional objections, the issue will close on October 8th (the slide says the 7th, but the notes say the 8th, so we'll wait til the 8th).
There was some discussion about this. Several people raised concerns about appeals and other process interference if we do not update 2026. Lars in particular wanted to see an update soon, if not at the same time as the new model is released. Brian Rosen agreed to write a very brief update, on the condition that it not get bogged down in a broader update. John Klensin offered to help, if needed.
To be dispatched. Wes gave the IAB a heads up. This is a tracking issue and will close.
Only one editorial comment from John Klensin: a request to organize the appendix into changes. No objections. Peter willmake the change. This review will close on the 6th of October.
Answer is "Yes": we need boiler plate for Editorial stream. Text is in draft. Will be moved out of appendix so that it is normative. This issue will close on the 9th of October, barring objections.
There was general agreement that the streams should manage their own boiler plate with the understanding that other streams should be able to approve to avoid conflicts, and that the RFC Trust should also approve to avoid legal issues. However, we did not quite come to consensus on what language to use. Jay has subsequently put out a message that is seeing wide-spread agreement, with a small modification. See the list. This issue will close on the 9th of October, barring objections.
There is now text that updates RFC 8730, with an Updates: header. Barring objections, issue will close on the 6th of October.
Some further discussion about whether experimental documents could be published. The result was that while perhaps there could be experiments, the RSWG could propose changes to this specification to allow that sort of thing later. Therefore, Informational Only for now. Ok, to leave a reminder that only the IETF sets standards and BCPs. This issue will close on the 12th of October, barring objections.
Text is in the draft. Chair reminded the group that this eventuality requires stream managers to fail to show or fail to process changes. There was no further discussion. This issue will close on the 12th of October, barring objections.
Chair pointed out that this has been discussed in depth several times, and there is text in the draft. No concerns were raised. Issue to close on 29th of September (it did).
The only question raised thus far in the review was whether we wanted a diagram. There was no consensus and no support raised for including a diagram. John suggested "Helpful but not necessary". Barring objections, this issue will close on the 9th of October. HOWEVER, anyone reviewing may still raise new issues.
Text is in draft, has been previously discussed. To close on the 29th of September (they did).
We spent a lot of time discussing this issue. What happens if there is a vacancy and what is a quorum in the RSAB? There was near universal agreement in the room that if a position is vacant, approval decisions should not be made. Eliot raised the concern that a single stream could block all work by not appointing. Lars suggested that this risk was overriden by the risk of a stream being harmed. The room agreed with Lars on this point.
For Issue 84, it then logicallty follows that consideration of approvals cannot proceed if a position isn't entered.
Issues to close on the 12th of October, barring objections.
There was an explanation that the RPC owns the mailing list rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. There was no interest in addressing this ownership in the document. There was also no interest in addressing outreach.
Issue to close on the 12th of October.
Peter will add a note in the draft that, for the avoidance of doubt, the RSAG is (once again) concluded. Appropriate wordsmithing acceptable.
There was no other business.