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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Wed Nov 19 09:04:59 PST 2008


On Nov 16, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:

>> That the IASA is not funding the effort does not mean that it is  
>> not of
>> sufficient importance for the IAB to make sure the job is funded at
>> all. It is not the case that the IAB has deep pockets, but we can
>> certainly work towards assisting in finding funds for e.g. a stipend.
>>
>> The problem is that when the IETF is paying the function its
>> independence from the IETF is obviously at stake.
>>
>
> How much are you willing to live with true independence for the ISE
> (independent submissions Editor)?
>
> Is there an appeal process from ISE decisions?
>
>
>
> If the ISE decides not to accept a document, can this be appealed?   
> Or do
> you then have to find an AD shepherd?


This is all covered by RFC 4846

In particular Section 4.5:

If the author is dissatisfied with one or more review(s), the author  
may request that the RFC Editor solicit additional reviews. In  
exceptional circumstances, the author may request that the IAB review  
the document. Such requests to the IAB, and any reviews the IAB  
chooses to perform, will occur according to procedures of the IAB's  
choosing. The IAB is not required to initiate a review or comply with  
a request for one: a request to the IAB for a review is not an appeal  
process.

>
> Does this mean that the IESG is losing some of its current power to  
> say "Do
> Not Publish"  or to include "harmful to the internet" language in a
> document?
>

Also see 4846 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis


> How much of an appearance of independence exists if the ISE serves  
> at the
> pleasure of the IAB?

That is a value judgement I guess. Different folk will answer that  
question differently.

As far as the IAB is concerned it is part of its chartered role and  
the IAB is very conscious about the fact that the RFC series reaches  
beyond the interest of the IETF.


--Olaf










-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081119/cde6d550/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list