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

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Sat Nov 22 15:48:26 PST 2008


Good catch.  I never considered funding the Independet Submissions 
Editor through IASA as an activity of the IAB.  This ought to be considered.

Russ


At 06:21 PM 11/22/2008, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>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:
>
>[From BCP101]
>>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.
>
>Leslie.
>
>
>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
>>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
>
>
>--
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Reality:
>      Yours to discover."
>                                 -- ThinkingCat
>Leslie Daigle
>leslie at thinkingcat.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list