[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model: RSE Responsibilities

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Jan 19 00:04:33 PST 2009


[Resend; when looking for this mail in the archive, I noticed it  
wasn't there. Turns out the first mail was victim of autocompletion  
and went to rfc-editor, instead of rfc-interest]


Folk,

The suggestions below are a strawman based on the feedback on the  
draft RFI (RFI at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05540.html 
  . The feedback can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rfc-editor-rfi/current/maillist.html 
  , and the thread starting at:  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54833.html 
  .


It seems appropriate to suggest a modification to the text of the RFC  
Editor model. To me it is not clear weather this is a modification of  
the model or a somewhat involved clarification. I am CC-ing the IAB on  
this note in order to bring them fully in the loop and make sure they  
are aware and informed.

It is clear from that discussion that the interpretation of the role  
of the RFC Series Editor from the model document is ambiguous.

The intention of the text modification is to clarify that the role of  
the Series Editor is a subject matter expert that coordinates the  
'back office' (RFC Production and Publishing) functions and keeps both  
the IAB and the IAOC out the critical path, but maintains a dialogue  
with those institutions and the community.

Besides, with this more outspoken role for the RSE,  there seems to be  
the need to mention an dispute resolution procedure.

The modification would take place in section 3, just below the figure,  
adding some clarifying text and in section 3.1, with the addition of a  
new point 2 and 3 and the rewording of the original point 2 (now point  
4).

I've added the relevant text, in context below .. and will publish  
this (depending discussion here, and modulo style and text formatting)  
in an I-D some time next week.



<DRAFT>
3.  RFC Editor Model

   The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series
   into the following components:

   o  RFC Series Editor

   o  Independent Submission Editor

   o  RFC Production Center

   o  RFC Publisher

   The RFC Series Production and Process under this structure is
   schematically represented by the figure below.


   [RFC MODEL PICTURE]

NEW:
In this model the RFC Series Editor will coordinate many of the  
activities of the
RFC Publisher and and the RFC Production Center (which can be seen as  
back office functions) and
will be the entity that faces the community, and works with the IAB  
and IAOC for procedural and contractual responsibilities respectively  
while those entities maintain their chartered responsibility.

If during the execution of their activities, a dispute arises over a  
(policy) decision made by one of the four entities in the model then  
the party having the conflict should first request a reconsideration  
of the decision, if that reconsideration is not satisfactory to the  
party then the matter can be brought to the RFC Series Editor for a  
decision, if the RFC Series Editor decision is not satisfactory the  
matter can be brought to the IAB, whose decision will be binding. If  
the dispute is with the RFC Series Editor then there are only two  
stages: reconsideration and the IAB consideration.


3.1.  RFC Series Editor

  The RFC Series Editor, or Series Editor for short, is an individual
  who may have assistants and who is responsible for:

  1.  Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity

NEW:
  2.  Coordinates the implementation of policies, processes and  
procedures
      established to ensure the quality and consistency fo the RFC  
Series.
      The Series Editor will work with the IAB and IAOC to develop new
      policy and see that contractual agreements are met.
NEW:
  3.  The RFC Series Editor will take proposes changes to the  
community, and
      the IAB will ensure that there sufficient community review before
      the policy is adopted.

MODIFIED:
  4.  Coordinating with IAB and/or IAOC, and together with the IAB and/ 
or IAOC
      participate in reviews of the RFC Publisher, RFC Publication, and
      Independent Stream Editor functions to ensure the above  
mentioned continuity

  5.  Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual
      publication for use by authors, editors, and the RFC publisher

  6.  Managing the RFC errata process

  7.  Liaising with the IAB

  8.  Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style
      Manual

</DRAFT>

I believe and hope that that text provides a clear enough framework to  
go forward with the expedient publication as an RFC so that during the  
RFI process the document is stable. In other words, I hope to keep a  
short timer on this and hope to sync the IAB decision roughly with the  
publication of the RFI.

Again, if we find errors, or find the need for modifications we can  
create a version 2 of the model but I think we are at point were we  
should freeze the description of the model.


--as spider in this IAB/IAOC/RFC web,


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090119/a0fe64b0/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list