[rfc-i] [Fwd: re: Independent Stream "inside" the RFC Editor]

Nevil Brownlee n.brownlee at auckland.ac.nz
Sat Nov 6 23:46:24 PDT 2010



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: re: Independent Stream "inside" the RFC Editor
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:19:48 +1300
From: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee at auckland.ac.nz>
To: dhc2 at dcrocker.net <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
CC: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>


Hi Dave:

In an earlier email you said ...

  > The current proposal faithfully perpetuates the RFC 5620 model that
  > declares the Independent Stream as being "inside" the RFC Editor, yet
  > is "independent".
  >
  > To me this is a perfect non-sequitor.
  >
  > I cannot discern any functional reality or any conceptual benefit in
  > claiming that the ISE is part of the RFC Editor.  The new diagram makes
  > the oddness of this quite visible, with the peculiar path the dotted line
  > has to take, to include the ISE.
  >
  > The Independent Stream indeed needs to be independent.  So let's make it
a > clean and separate arrangement:  Itshould have the same status as any
  > other stream.(*)
  >
  > The stated concept that the ISE needs a "home" does not have any obvious
  > meaning to me.  Perhaps someone can explain it?
  >
  > d/
  >
  > (*) The stream needs a particularly good working relationship with the RFC
  > Editor (and, therefore, the RSE), especially since the stream has been
  > known to come under criticism from one or another stream...  But this does
  > not mean that the ISE should be "inside" the RFC Editor.

The ISE does indeed need to maintain his independence, but equally,
he needs to be seen as having a home, i.e. to be something more than
just a single individual, somewhere in the big picture - i.e. within
the IETF/ISOC universe.  I regard the ISE as sitting in a fuzzy zone
between the RFC Editor and the wider RFC User Community.

I think what Glenn's striving for is to set out how things work
for negotiating/monitoring of the ISE's contract and performance,
while underscoring the point that the ISE remains completely
independent when it comes to Editorial (i.e. content-related)
decisions about each Independent Submission.

My experience this year has been that it's useful for the ISE to
have close working contact with the RFC Editor and the Production
Team.  That, and the history (Indendent Submissions were handled
by the RFC Editor for many, many years) are the reason why having
it sitting on the boundary between the RFC Editor box and the
'rest of the world.'

Cheers, Nevil (ISE)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list