[rfc-i] [IAB] FW: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sun Apr 26 02:54:38 PDT 2009

On 26 apr 2009, at 00:34, Dave Thaler wrote:

> My comments on the SOW are attached (see comments plus additional
> corrections added to the existing change tracking).


I've pulled out some of the more substantive questions and I've CC-ed  
rfc-interest on the answer, some of the questions may occur there to,  
and these answers may clarify or shed different perspective.

I hope that for the latter the context is clear.


The Job Description reads:

> The RFC Series Editor is supported  and advised in these actions by  
> the IAB- chartered RFC Series Editor Advisory Group

your question:
> In what way?  Not financially, right?

Correct, not financially.

Job description:
>  then the the matter must be registered  with the RFC Series  
> Advisory Group who may

>  By the party having the conflict, correct?


Job description:
> While the RFC Series Editor may be requested  to wait with a final  
> decision until the RSAG's advice is formulated, the RFC Series  
> Editor's decision is final.

[Requested] By whom?  The party?  RSAG?  IAB?

By the RSAG, the RSAG may say ask the RSE to hold back while the RSAG  
is deliberating. The RSE may choose to ignore that request (e.g.  
because of the fact that a timely decision needs to be made).

(This answer hooks back into some messages earlier today and yesterday  
on RFC interest, about the amount of executive control the RSE has).

Job description:
> In case a dispute has immediate or future contractual consequences,  
> the RFC Series Editor reports to the IAOC and, when available,  
> delivers the RSAG's advice. The IAD, under IAOC's guidance, has the  
> responsibility to resolve contractual issues whereby the RFC Series  
> Editor's report should be leading .

>  I can’t follow this phrase.  Clarify.

What I tried to express here is that if there is a problem that would  
have impact on the contractual relations then the RSE can go to IASA  
and say: please fix this, and this is how you should fix it.
Obviously the IASA has its own responsibilities in this context but in  
theory they should follow the RSE's advice/request (report).

Hope this clarifies.


Job description:
> The RFC Series Editor shall lead the RFC EditorSeries Advisory Group  
> to conduct a periodic  review of the RFC Production Center and RFC  
> Publisher to ensure the consistency of the RFC Series.  Said review  
> shall be forwarded to the IAB and IAOC.

> How often does the IAB/IAOC expect these?  Is the period up to the  
> RSE to define?

That is currently under-specified.

I think it is up to the IAB and IAOC to set the expectation.  
Personally I would think about annually.

> F.6 below says it’s up to the IAB, assuming this is the same thing…  
> but F.6 mentions the ISE too and the text here doesn’t.

That is an omission.

The RSE is supposed to provide guidance to the ISE on _operational_  
issues (i.e. this is not about the technical content of the stream)  
and the ISE should be mentioned whenever there we talk about  
operational management and review.

[Boarding a plane, I'll reconnect in 10+ hours]


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090426/571e6c5c/PGP.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list