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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 19:08:57 PDT 2009

On 2009-04-19 10:24, SM wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 07:14 18-04-2009, John C Klensin wrote:

>> I have to agree with this although I can also tell you, as an
>> IAB "insider" now, that the IAOC has not been significantly more
>> forthcoming with the IAB than it has with the community as a
>> whole.
> If the IAB and the IAOC cannot work in unison, there's a bigger 
> problem.  Hiding under the veil of confidentiality won't make the 
> problems go away.

As a historical note, the IAOC came into existence at a time
when the major (indeed, overwhelming) concern was the future of
the Secretariat, which was much more of an IESG concern. As far
as there were concerns about the RFC Editor, they were mainly
operational (backlog, contract conditions) and not issues of
principle like we're now discussing. So there wasn't any real
need for IAOC-IAB dialogue and it didn't become part of the
IAOC ethos.

Obviously, that needs to change, and quickly, going by
what John says.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list