[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Apr 13 09:45:29 PDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

Ray Pelletier wrote:
>> In my view, the reason why we started to work on the committee is to  
>> provide a body that is the carrier of the "RFC Series Flame" and  
>> while the IAB has the responsibility of oversight the point was made  
>> that the IAB members are currently not selected for RFC/Editorial  
>> expertise and that the IAB does not have the cycles to consult the  
>> RSE in times of crises.  Another important goal was to gain long  
>> term consistency, a consistency that spans the RSE contract cycles  
>> and therefore may also outlive the individual RSEs.

IMO, there is no single carrier of the RFC Series Flame. The IAB/IESG
carries the standards track, and the remainder are carried by the
community as a whole.

The management of the RFCs is provided by the ISOC, but this is a
community entity. If the IAB wants yet another committee to review
standards track or IETF-produced RFCs, that's fine.

I strongly object to anything between an individual and individual
submission RFCs, ***especially*** anything involved with the IETF that
does anything other than check for end-runs. The RFC Editor already has
discretion to avoid publishing "inappropriate" RFCs (e.g., off-topic,
legally entangled, etc.). I don't care whether they have an advisory
group they or the community as a whole selects, but I do not agree that
the IAB should be involved with this at all.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list