[rfc-i] Overview document available
sm at resistor.net
Sun Nov 7 12:36:18 PST 2010
I'll start by thanking you once again for making the regular reports
publicly available and for the smooth transition. I haven't seen any
reports from the ISE but that's a different story.
At 20:05 06-11-10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand. Can you ask this question a bit more
>narrow or differently?
The Overview PDF mentions "must provide the overall leadership and
management of RFC Editor functions". Can that be done under RFC 5620
or should there be a change for that to be possible?
>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.
Yes, it is during your tenure as TSRE. Thanks for the answer.
>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.
>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 could result. From the draft, Section 10. "Re-Establishing
>an RFC Editor Stream Capability":
It is good to apply the same yardstick to others as what we would
apply to ourselves. If the RSE cannot "talk to" the ISE and get work
then, it becomes a problem. Solving the problem of RSE RFC
publication by creating a new stream is a politically correct
alternative. My preference is not to take that path. If you believe
it is the better choice, I'll defer to you on this.
More information about the rfc-interest