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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sun Apr 26 17:38:48 PDT 2009


On 26 apr 2009, at 11:54, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

>
> Dave:
>> 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  
hitting send.

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.


--Olaf
-------------- 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/20090427/3db97009/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list