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

SM sm at resistor.net
Sat Apr 18 16:07:10 PDT 2009

At 13:58 18-04-2009, Craig Partridge wrote:
>There's an additional risk under "lucky."  One might find a senior
>person whose employer views it as useful to have the RSE on the employer's
>salary, and thus offers a person for the RSE role at a sharp discount.

That's one of the possible issues a future appointment model will have address.

>There are obvious dangers of capture  (e.g. consider Cisco, Juniper
>and Huawei and suppose that one of them employed the RSE editor -- how
>would the other 2 feel?  How would the IETF feel)?

The IETF community should take notice now instead of complaining 
after the event.  It's good that you brought the question up.  My 
opinion is that the choice should not be seen as giving the 
appearance that a company has the upper hand on the RFC Editor 
function.  However, if that is the primary concern, we can end up 
with mediocre choices.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list