[rfc-i] [IAB] FW: RFC Editor Model Version 5 and revised RSE SOW
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sun Apr 26 17:38:48 PDT 2009
On 26 apr 2009, at 11:54, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> 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.
Apologies, While running for the plane I was a little to fast in
In my view, but that is not explicit in the model, that the IAB will
review its appointees. In the sense that the ISE is an appointee of
the IAB it will review the functioning of the ISE. However, that will
be done with the participation of the RSE. I envision the RSE's input
to be leading if it comes to 'interaction' within the RFC Editor. As
far as quality of the stream output goes the IAB will need to draw
from several sources. Those may include the RSE, the RSAG, community
members, etc, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090427/3db97009/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest