[rfc-i] RFC Editor structure

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 15:26:54 PDT 2008


Well, this is an argument about semantics, which means it's
probably NP-complete, but here goes...

On 2008-09-23 05:22, Bob Braden wrote:
> Brian,
> in response to:
>   *> > 
>   *> > Question is how to pick the RFC Editor to sustain the RFC Series.
>   *> 
> you wrote:
>   *> The IAB is the guardian of the series.
> Brian,
> I am intrigued by this statement.  I do not recall having heard this
> claim before.  The RFC Editor always (well, for the past 10 years)
> acknowledged that the RFC Editor operates under the "general direction"
> of the IAB.  More recently, the IAB has been asserting an increasingly
> detailed authority over some areas that previously were considered to
> be delegated to the RFC Editor.  However, none of this seems to be an
> assertion of guardianship of the series.  It seems to me that the
> community as a whole are the guardians of the series.  The IAB merely
> provides direction, general or not, to the RFC Editor.

Well, it's written that the IAB "must approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor." We can certainly argue whether that qualifies as
guardianship or only as oversight of the guards. Also, there's no
doubt that the IAB is responsible to the community as a whole, so
we agree about the ultimate source of guardianship.

> Note that RFC 2850 has parallel language for the RFC Editor and for
> IANA; would you assert that the IAB is the guardian of the IANA
> registries? You could, I suppose, but that seems a stretch.

No, I don't think it's a stretch at all; that's exactly why we
have the MOU immortalised as RFC 2860. I do see RFC 4844 as equally
important, and they both hang off the same clause in RFC 2850.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list