[rfc-i] Public face for the RFC series
housley at vigilsec.com
Tue Jan 20 10:28:45 PST 2009
Right now, the person that discovers a problem sends an email to
rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org and it is routed within the staff to the
proper person to resolve the concern. I hope this remains the
case. The RFC Publisher is the (back office) function that runs the
web site on behalf of all aspects of the RFC Editor operation. I
think the exchange with Brian, Bob, and myself was about making this
relationship clear. Do you disagree with the "exercises
executive-level management" outcome of that discussion?
At 11:27 AM 1/20/2009, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>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
More information about the rfc-interest