[rfc-i] new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Editor recommendations now available
sm at resistor.net
Tue Nov 30 12:26:53 PST 2010
At 00:47 23-11-10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>A new draft summarizing updated Transitional RFC Recommendations,
>"draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-overview-00" is now available.
It's odd to reference the datatracker for this draft. Is the
document source "Network Working Group" (see RFC 5741)?
Quoting the Abstract Section:
"The RFC Editor is a set of functions that accepts draft documents
from the community, makes edits and other changes for clarity and
formal correctness, and publishes and archives openly-accessible
RFCs. Editorial services are provided by a Production Center,
publication and access services by a 'Publisher'. The RFC Series
Editor is responsible for ensure ongoing operations as well as
development of the Editor function and the Series."
If that sums up the RFC Editor Model, do we really have to get into a
long discussion about it? I don't think so. If the draft is to
serve as a basis for coming up with a RFC Editor Model, it could
reuse some of the text from RFC 5620.
In Section 2.2:
"For example, RFC Editor functions could be implemented under
separate or joint contractual arrangements, and bidders may make
proposals that could include one or more contractors. Determining
the acceptability of various implementations is the responsibility
of the RFC Series Editor and the IAOC, in consultation with the
What is this Policy Council?
In Section 2.3:
"RFC Editor internal reporting structure is subject to change over
time depending, for example, on plans and the manner in which
contracts are awarded."
This is internal affairs. I suggest leaving this up to the IOAC.
From Section 3.3:
"RFC Publisher and RFC Production Center contractors are recommended
by the Series Editor and IAOC after an open RFP process, and approved
by the IAB."
What does the IAB have to do with contractual agreements?
From Section 4.1:
"The RFC Series Editor appointee is an individual. The Series Editor
is designated by the IAB, and may be removed by the IAB, subject to
This is not an appointment; it is more of a contract.
From Section 4.2:
"The Series Editor is responsible for ensuring that the Editor
policies are adhered to and developed in line with community
What community is that?
The title of Section 4.2.5 is "Represent the Series to the Rest of
the World". Is that really needed?
From Section 184.108.40.206:
"authoritative community entities (e.g., the IETF Trust regarding
The IETF Trust is not authoritative for Internet Protocol notices. :-)
If the IAB wants to divest its responsibility and leave it to the
REOC to run the RFC Series, it is free to do so. Having so many
committee is a bad idea though.
In Section 6.1:
"Disagreements between RFC Editor Components and Model
This is about contractual relationships. It does not matter what a
RFC says as it cannot override a contract.
To summarize, I am far from convinced after reading
More information about the rfc-interest