[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority
rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 07:33:06 PDT 2011
On 1st July 2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote, in part:
> All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
> Internet community. The community is the arbiter of policy.
> The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues.
> the combination with
> The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB:
> In general it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy
> and vision documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration
> with the community.
> will ensure that the IAB (ultimately) has the possibility
> to determine if the relevant community has been consulted.
All of the above words seem fine, except that I'd substitute
the crisper language "responsibility to determine" rather than
"possibility to determine".
I would like to see edits made clarifying that the IAB is NOT
expected to act as a "rubber stamp" with respect to RFC matters,
but instead the IAB is expected to actually exercise oversight.
Ordinarily, such oversight ought to be very light and low overhead
for all, for example reviewing the regular status reports on
RFC publication that have existed for years and being available
to hear any concerns that might exist from anyone in the broader
Internet community, but it is really important that the document
language make clear that the IAB has actual oversight responsibility,
not merely theoretical authority.
With regard to Dave Crocker's note on terminology, I strongly prefer
using "Internet community" over "IETF community" (as Olaf's words
above already do), because any plain-language reading of the phrase
"IETF community" has a meaning that is far too narrow. The RFC series
serves not only the IETF/IESG, and separately also the IRTF/IRSG/IAB,
but also the broader Internet research, development, operations,
and user communities. We want to use and retain clear language that
keeps the RFC series scope obviously broad.
More information about the rfc-interest