[rfc-i] Public face for the RFC series

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Jan 20 08:27:37 PST 2009


Greetings again. The changes proposed by Olaf on 2009-01-19 have a new phrase that was not mentioned in draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-03: "the entity that faces the community". It is good to see this considered, but the new wording and the recently-previewed RFI are at conflict with regard to the public face of the RFC series.

If the RSE is meant to be the public face for the RFC series, that person should be able to make the tools that the public sees when looking at the RFC series. However, tool design, maintenance, and deployment are run by the production center and the publisher.

Two not-too-hypothetical scenarios illustrate this problem:

- An author with a document in process goes to rfc-editor.org to see the status of his document and finds that something is very wrong. That author would then go to the RSE, who does not have any control over the problem and also does not have control over the tool that caused the problem.

- An IETF participant goes to rfc-editor.org to look for all RFCs on a particular topic and finds some serious problems with the search mechanism. That participant would then go to the RSE, who does not have any control over the problem and also does not have control over the tool that caused the problem.

If the RSE is meant to be the entity that faces the community on RFC issues, that person needs to have control over what the community sees on rfc-editor.org, both during the publishing process and after publication. If they don't have any control over the content, they should not be put up as the public face of the RFC series, but should instead just be the coordinator/overseer/manager of the process, interfacing mostly with the IAB and IAOC except during one-way presentations at plenaries.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list