[rfc-i] [IAB] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)
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.
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:
>>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
>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.
>>>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."
> -- ThinkingCat
>leslie at thinkingcat.com
More information about the rfc-interest