[rfc-i] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)
leslie at thinkingcat.com
Sat Nov 22 15:21:30 PST 2008
I wanted to come back to this point to follow up my remarks at the IETF
plenary meeting the other day, and further Jim's point:
[From the document]
> The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the
> community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one
> used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as
> described in Appendix A should be used. A stipend (if provided) and
> expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent
> Submission Editor selected in this manner would be not be part of the
> IASA budget, but could be part of a 3rd party's budget.
Certainly, the expectation/requirement of the Independent stream is that
it be independent (of the IETF) in content. So, it would make little
sense to ask the IETF to support it (financially).
However, when we put together BCP 101, there was the expectation that
the IASA would serve all the elements of the IETF:
> The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the
> administrative structure required to support the IETF standards
> process and to support the IETF's technical activities. As of the
> time at which this document was written, this included the work of
> IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF. Should the
> IETF standards process at some future date come to include other
> technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to
> provide administrative support for them. Such support includes, as
> appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the work described in
> [RFC3716], including IETF document and data management, IETF
> meetings, and any operational agreements or contracts with the RFC
> Editor and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The IASA
> is also ultimately responsible for the financial activities
It is certainly the case that the IAB has historically supported the
Independent Submissions part of the RFC Editor function through the
IASA, even when it was not clear the IETF had consensus to fund it.
The IASA role provides a framework for supporting administrative
activities (financially and organizationally). That includes process,
expectations of openness, etc.
So, given that it can be done (independently) through the IASA, it
really isn't clear to me why the IAB doesn't want to do that.
ISTM that taking it to "a 3rd party" would require hammering out pretty
much the same sort of process framework as we did for the IASA, even if
on a smaller scale. There have to be pieces in place to be clear over
who has responsibility and rights for which (funding) decisions.
Again -- really not clear to me why taking it out of the IASA is
perceived as a win.
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 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
> 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.
>> -----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-
>> 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
Yours to discover."
leslie at thinkingcat.com
More information about the rfc-interest