[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model
housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Mar 27 15:15:45 PDT 2009
Thanks for posting this suggestion. It is quite clear that you have
given it a lot of thought.
One thing that is vague to me, is the selection process for the
RSE. I think that the committee that you describe could select an
individual for confirmation by the IAB. This preserves the
accountability to the IAB, which I think is very important.
The selection of the committee itself is also important, as are
terms. Since the point of the committee is stability, I think that a
3 year term seems reasonable. Using your suggestion for a six person
committee, two of them up for renewal every year. I do not think
that the IETF NomCom is the right way to find committee members --
you do not suggest that it is. However, I think it is important that
member selection is confirmed by the IAB.
I believe that the committee can provide a quick review of decisions
made by the RSE when such a decision is challenged. My hope is that
the advice offered by such a review can resolve most concerns, and
the ones that it does not resolve can be appealed to the IAB.
Finally, I really do not like the proposed name. I prefer something
with "Advisory" in it. Perhaps "RFC Series Advisory Group".
Thanks for all of the work you are putting into this effort,
>If the missing piece is the container function, let's put it back into
>draft-iab-rfc-editor-model. Leave all the 4 functions (mostly) as they
>are, but introduce the RFC Editor Function (or Framework) committee as
>the focal point for binding them together, and populate it with living
>people, not an inanimate document.
>Specifically: The RFC Editor Framework is a committee chartered by the
>IAB to oversee the interpretation and evolution of the RFC Series (as
>defined in RFC4844). This takes the place of one of the advisory
>committees described in draft-iab-rfc-editor-model. This committee
>"holds the flame" of the RFC Series, providing interpretation of the
>current definition, indicating when current implementation is in need of
>improvement, and invoking appropriate community discussion when change
>is needed. It provides consistency and constancy of the RFC Series
>interpretation over time, and is a resource for the IAD in setting and
>managing contracts. It is responsible to the IAB: any of its decisions
>are appealable to the committee and then to the IAB. [I'm having a hard
>time really imagining WHAT decisions it will make, let alone why they
>would be appealable, but it seems important to specify]. The
>committee provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn provides guidance to
>the IAD for any decisions with contractual implications for the ISE,
>Production House, or Publisher.
>This committee is chartered with as much formality as, say, the IRTF:
>it's not a subcommittee or a temporary kludge. The IAB appoints a chair
>for it (N.B.: this does not need to be an IAB member). Ex officio
>voting members are: the RSE and the IAD. The rest of the voting
>committee members (say, 6?) are selected based on their experience and
>interest in the RFC Series, and they serve at the pleasure of the IAB
>(though the selection process should probably include
>suggestions/nominations from the RSE, and the committee clearly has to
>be selected to work well with the RSE). Additionally, each RFC stream
>has a (non-voting, non-member) liaison to the committee.
>To reiterate, because it is important: the committee members are
>selected for their experience to help make this function work, NOT as
>"representatives" from different bodies.
>Either the RSE or this committee works with the IAB for purposes of
>fulfilling the IAB oversight role for the RFC Editor function. [This
>unrolls to: the IAB is outside this RFC Editor Framework box, and the
>IAB retains its oversight role, without having to get into the details
>it doesn't track today. The IAB can clearly name a members to the
>committee, if it so desires. The RSE is the natural liaison to the IAB.]
More information about the rfc-interest