[rfc-i] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)
rpelletier at isoc.org
Mon Nov 10 15:52:27 PST 2008
On Nov 10, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> I have a few questions that arise from this document.
> 1. One of the tasks of the RFC Series Editor is to oversee the
> 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
> 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
> the RFC Series Editor will flag lapses in consistency to the IAOC
> publication as they are noted either by the editor or the general
It make sense to me that the Editor may want to review 'ready-to-
publish' documents before going to the Publisher from time to time
(and maybe a lot in the beginning) to achieve the consistency desired
and therefore should be able to request documents be sent to him/her.
The Editor would also be informed by those and by those where uncaught
lapses did occur in updating the Style Manual.
> 2. For the independent submission editor, I note that both
> editorial skills
> and competency in English are not requisite qualifications. Is this
> 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
> 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
> 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
> me. I believe that this job is currently funded as part of the
> with ISI. (Bob, please correct me if I am wrong.) This document is
> 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
> 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
> 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
> not be published or the communities time for dealing with documents
> should never have been published.
>> -----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-
>> Two days ago I posted this message as iab-chair. That message
>> 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-
>>> 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
>>> increase flexibility and operational support options, provide for
>>> orderly succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of
>>> 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
>>> the IAB on October 1. After the approval the document saw some
>>> clarification based on ongoing discussion. The IAB intends to
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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)
>>> --Olaf Kolkman
>>> RFC Editor Model
>>> The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried
>>> 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
>>> 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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest