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

SM sm at resistor.net
Sat Apr 25 09:46:19 PDT 2009

Hi Olaf,
At 08:34 20-04-2009, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>For the long and the short of it: by the end of this week we will need
>have the essentials in place to move on. Therefore I want to focus on
>some specifics.
>- RFC Series Advisory Group.
> From what I read on this list there seems to be (rough) consensus for
>introducing the committee and having it seated with members from the
>RFC Editorial board. The RSAG is chartered by the IAB and its members
>are approved by the IAB. We will need to find language that is

That looks fine.  I prefer a longer transition period.

>- IAOC matters related to the implementation.
>Some points that relate to the current discussion and that I want to
>report back from last weeks IAOC retreat. I am sure that Bob H. will
>speak up if I misinterpreted the IAOC consensus.
>  a. One topic we discussed was the monetary arrangements for the ISE.
>The IAOC seemed to be (informally) supporting the notion that there is
>an expense account for the ISE but that there is no stipend or salary
>for the ISE. The idea here is that the technical assessment of
>documents for the other streams are all also volunteer based. Besides
>the (only) RFI response we received for the RFI indicated that the job
>could be done as a volunteer job. If people agree with this a simple
>"1+" reply would help. If people oppose this idea, good arguments are

As there aren't a lot of submissions through the Independent Stream 
and as there is a volunteer, I don't have any arguments against the 
idea.  There was a mention of delays for the Independent Stream and 
"lack of communication" for Internet-Drafts going through that 
stream.  These matters could be discussed once the dust is settled.

Brian made a comment about the RSE should be seen as 
independent.  That view can be applied to the ISE as well.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list