[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Tue Nov 23 14:11:08 PST 2010


Jumping in with both feet :-)

Thanks -- I think this structure will be easier to work from for discussion.


Before getting to too many specifics, like Olaf I'd like to understand 
what the REOC is.    Outlined in 5.1, the RFC Editor Oversight Committee 
has a list of duties, but no stated purpose.

All I get from the document is:

>  The Series Editor reports to the REOC

which is then adjusted in 5.1.3

> 5.1.3.  The Series Editor and the REOC
> 
>    The RSE will report to the regular (non-liaison) membership of the
>    REOC.


and 5.1.2
>  The REOC will be a small committee, defined by the IAB.  Terms will
>    be two years renewable (with several one year terms initi
[...]
>  The REOC will elect its chair among the regular (non-liaison)
>    members.

with no definition of "liaison members".

and

> 6.1.  Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
>       Participants
> 
[snip]
>    If one party still disagrees after the reconsideration, that party
>    should ask the Series Editor to undertake a formal review.  The RSE
>    must inform and engage the REOC in their oversight capacity, and may
>    call for a review committee including members of the REOC.  The RSE
>    and REOC should seek to reach rough consensus on the resolution of
>    the matter.

and various other references to roles in dispute management -- though 
_those_ duties are not in the list elaborated in 5.1.1.

If I piece things together:

	. REOC is appointed by IAB, not RSE (as opposed to the
	  all-but-devoiced RSAG, which is an RSE-appointed committee)

	. REOC is a broad base of backing support for the RSE (in all
	  the duties listed)

	. REOC is where the RSE reports, but the IAOC is still footing
	  the bill/signing the contract

I'm uncertain how the last bit can work -- the IAOC has to have some 
level of responsibility for the RSE (e.g., RSE reports to).  If the 
issue is that you don't want the RSE reporting to the IAD, how about:

	IAOC has an RFC Editor subcommittee, with ?? members appointed
	by the IAOC, and ?? members appointed by the IAB by another
	process, and the RSE as ex officio member.

	The RFC Editor subcommittee's role is to make recommendations to
	the IAOC for matters impacting contractual relations, including
	the selection and review of the RSE.




And then in section 2.2

> Determining the acceptability of various
>    implementations is the responsibility of the RFC Series Editor and
>    the IAOC, in consultation with the Policy Council.

I didn't see Policy Council defined anywhere.



Thanks,
Leslie.

Glenn Kowack wrote:
> A new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Recommendations,
> "draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00" is now available.
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview/?include_text=1
> 
> This document brings together all previous documents and community
> comment on this topic, and is intended to be the basis for further
> community discussion.  This highly condensed draft has been produced
> instead of a -01 update to "draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00".
> 
> This draft does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on which
> this specification is based.  Those, and differences from RFC 5620, will
> be described in a document to be published on 29 November.
> 
> regards,
> Glenn
> Transitional RFC Series Editor
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list