[rfc-i] Some questions on the model and the motivations

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Jan 3 07:16:07 PST 2011


 Glenn:

>> 1.b) Suppose we would redesign the model to get rid of the RSE, what responsibilities would need to be assigned ownership, where would you assign those responsibilities in the current 'greater IETF'?
> 
> I do not believe this would be wise and do not have a recommendation for doing so.  If I had been
> able  to find a way to do this without an RSE I would have recommended. Since this is contrary to
> the way the Editor has operated for the last 40 years, we are entering unknown, and potentially risky,
> territory.

This comes across as a flip answer.  I really think it deserves a more.

RFC 5260 in Section 3.1 considers two very different approaches for selection of an RSE.  A third was considered while writing RFC 5260 that made the RSE position part of the production center.  Since the exact nature of the position has been so elusive, I think that Olaf asked a question that needs a well considered answer.

Further, in your response to 1.a, you provide a list of things that might go wrong if the RSE seat is left empty.  But, you do not answer the second part of Olaf's question which is closely related to this question.  Olaf asked: "... what would the community notice in weeks, months, and years?"  I'd like to see your thoughts on that, and I'd like to expand Olaf's question.  If the RSE seat is empty, would the whole job fall to the IAB, or is there some portion of the job could easily be handled by the RSAG without too much interaction with the IAB?

Russ


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list