[rfc-i] Overview document available

Glenn Kowack Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Sat Nov 6 20:05:56 PDT 2010


On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:11 PM, SM wrote:

> Hi Glen,
> At 13:36 03-11-10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>> The Overview of TRSE Recommendations, mentioned below, is
>> now available. A copy is attached. This document addresses all
>> high-level recommendations in draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.
> 
> There is excessive usage of the "must" in draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.

For -01, I'll be reviewing when and where 'must', 'should' etc. are used.

> Are there any significant issues the Internet Community should be aware of in respect to the leadership and management of RFC Editor functions?

I'm not sure I understand.  Can you ask this question a bit more narrow or differently?

>  "The RFC Series Advisory Group must assist the RSE in finding this balance,
>   and must keep the RSE informed about community opinion."

See above.

> Can the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) comment on the assistance it provided to the TRSE?
> 
>  "The proposed model specifies that if the IAOC and RSE cannot agree on
>   contractual issues during the course of the RSE's work, they must bring
>   the issue to the IAB."
> 
> Were any issues brought to the attention of the IAB?

SM - you're asking about this during my tenure as TRSE yes?  During this period (starting 1 March), no issues were brought to the IAB.

Re RSAG comment, I don't muzzle the RSAG, but when, where and how they should comment, and to whom, is below the level of the draft, except they are expected to interact with the IAB as described.

>  "The [RFC Editor] stream should be re-instituted to distinguish RFC Editor-related
>   policy, structure, and process documents from other RFCs."
> 
> Is there a reason why this cannot be done through the Independent Submissions Stream?

In short, I did not want to create situations in which the different parties, including possible the
RSE,  might feel the need to put pressure on the ISE.  That could threaten the ISE's independence, which is unacceptable.  An alternative might be to add RFC-Editor oriented
submission processes to the ISE's practices; I think the same problems independence
problems could result.  From the draft, Section 10. "Re-Establishing an RFC Editor Stream Capability":

   ...[snip]...  Today, if the RSE wishes to publish an
   RFC, it must be approved by one of the streams.  None is suitable;
   each could impose process or content requirements on the RSE, which
   could reduce the RFC Editor's independence.  This might be especially
   so if the draft in question has impact on one or more of the streams.
   Adding new processes to permit RFC Editor publications to each stream
   would be complex and time-consuming, and would not clearly result in
   a satisfactory process.  The Independent Submissions Stream, being a
   general-purpose stream under the RFC Editor, might appear suitable.
   However, if an RFC Editor draft were politically significant, some
   parties might put pressure on the Independent Submissions Editor- and
   on the RSE - which could jeopardize Independent Stream autonomy.

Please see also Brian Carpenter's preceding comment.

Thanks very much for bringing up these issues.

Glenn
___


> Regards,
> -sm 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list