[rfc-i] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)

Jim Schaad ietf at augustcellars.com
Mon Nov 10 14:57:16 PST 2008


I have a few questions that arise from this document.


1.  One of the tasks of the RFC Series Editor is to oversee the consistency
of the RFCs with both prior RFCs and with the style guide.  As things
currently stand, this person is not a gateway on path from the production
center to the publisher.  Is it intended that the RFC Series Editor is going
to be a gateway on each document to do a judgment, or is it intended that
the RFC Series Editor will flag lapses in consistency to the IAOC after
publication as they are noted either by the editor or the general public?

2. For the independent submission editor,  I note that both editorial skills
and competency in English are not requisite qualifications.  Is this
intentional?

3.  I would like the document to clarify the following question.  Is it the
job of a series editor to ensure that a document that is passed to the
production house meet some minimal criteria for readability?  

As a member of the current RFC Editorial board, I have review a number of
submissions where the clarity of the document was lacking.  I would be loath
to say that the Independent Submissions Editor should have passed these
documents on to the production house to clean up the language problems and
then take them back to determine if they should really be published.  As I
understand things the submissions gatekeepers should only send on documents
that are really clear.  This however is not stated as a requirement or
responsibility for the independent submissions editor.

4.  The statement on funding for the Independent Submissions Editor worries
me.  I believe that this job is currently funded as part of the contract
with ISI.  (Bob, please correct me if I am wrong.)  This document is making
the statement at that it will no longer be funded through IASA and,
implicitly, says that we don't believe that the job is of sufficient
importance for the IAB to make sure that the job is funded at all.  If we
believe that this job is basically a sinecure, then this is not a problem.
If we believe that this job actually would require a substantial amount of
work, then this is an issue.  I would not be surprised to find out that we
are paying for this work either via the use of the production house for
dealing with documents that are not actually ready for production, the RFC
Series editor's or the IESG's time for dealing with documents that should
not be published or the communities time for dealing with documents that
should never have been published.  

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
> bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Kolkman
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 AM
> To: RFC Interest
> Subject: [rfc-i] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-
> editor-model-02.txt)
> 
> 
> 
> Two days ago I posted this message as iab-chair. That message dropped,
> hence this forward.
> 
> 
> > From: IAB Chair <iab-chair at ietf.org>
> > Date: November 6, 2008 3:01:20 PM GMT+01:00
> > To: independent at ietf.org, rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org,
> > ietf-announce at ietf.org
> > Cc: iab at iab.org
> > Subject: [INDEP] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-
> > rfc-editor-model-02.txt)
> > Reply-To: iab at iab.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >
> > The IAB and the IAOC have been working on a model that divides the
> > responsibilities for the RFC Series into four functions: The RFC
> > Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, RFC Production
> > Center, and the RFC Publisher. The model outlined here is intended to
> > increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for the
> > orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of
> the
> > RFC series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely
> > processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and
> > increasing cost transparency.
> >
> > The model has been discussed on the RFC interest list and approved by
> > the IAB on October 1. After the approval the document saw some
> > clarification based on ongoing discussion. The IAB intends to publish
> > this version 02 as an RFC so that the model serves as a baseline for
> > the implementation by the IAOC.
> >
> > The document is available as draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt.
> >
> > During the implementation of this model the IAB remains committed to
> > track and evaluate the developments, listen to the community, and
> > adjust the model if and when needed.
> >
> > If there are any issues you would like to bring to our attention
> > please post these to the RFC interest list
> > (rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org) or to the IAB (iab at iab.org). We plan to
> > hand this document to the RFC Editor after November 30 2008.
> >
> > As a next step in this process of a committee has been formed to
> > assist the IAOC and IAB with the selection process and the creation
> of
> > an RFI that will be issued early December.
> >
> >  - Russ Housley, (IESG member)
> >  - Leslie Daigle, (RFC processes experience)
> >  - Scott Bradner, (RFC Editorial Board experience)
> >  - Ray Pelletier, (IAD)
> >  - Craig Partridge, (IRSG member and RFC Editorial Board experience)
> >  - Olaf Kolkman, (IAB member)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Olaf Kolkman
> >
> >
> > Details:
> > RFC Editor Model
> > draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt
> >
> > Abstract:
> > The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out
> > by various persons or entities.  The RFC Editor model presented in
> > this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into
> > four functions: The RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission
> > Editor, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.  The model
> > outlined here is intended to increase flexibility and operational
> > support options, provide for the orderly succession of the RFC
> Editor,
> > and ensure the continuity of the RFC series, while maintaining RFC
> > quality, maintaining timely processing, ensuring document
> > accessibility, reducing costs, and increasing cost transparency.
> > _______________________________________________
> > INDEPENDENT mailing list
> > INDEPENDENT at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list