[rfc-i] IAB Call for Comment on "The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)"

Mykyta Yevstifeyev evnikita2 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 09:03:29 PDT 2011


Excuses, one additional comment,  Section 2.1.6:

>     [RSE should have:]
>
>     8.  Willingness to Travel.

I wonder why it's "willingness".  I think "ability" is better and 
represents the point clearer.  Mykyta

30.06.2011 5:33, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm for publication of this document and have 2 minor comments.
>
> I see this draft is going to in fact replace what was previously 
> defined in RFC 5620.  Then I don't see why this document isn't going 
> to obsolete that one.  In this case, it will be indicated that Version 
> 1 of RFC Editor model is no more to be used in favor of Version 2.
>
> In Section 2.3:
>>     [RFC Production Center]:
>>
>>     9.   Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
>>          actions;
> In RFC 5620 we had corresponding relation in the Figure 1:
>
>>      ------      --v--------v----------v-----------v-----
>>     |      |    |                                        |
>>     | IANA |<->|        RFC Production Center<
>>     |      |    |                                        |
>>      ------      -----------------^----------------------
>
>  which I can't find in the current document.  I personally think it 
> won't be redundant to mention this here, for clarity.
>
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 30.06.2011 0:49, IAB Chair wrote:
>>
>> The IAB has issued a Call for Comment on "The RFC Editor Model 
>> (Version 2)", a document under development within the IAB Stream [RFC 
>> 4845].   The document is available for inspection here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2
>>
>> "The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)" reflects one year of experience 
>> with RFC Editor Model version 1 [RFC 5620].  It describes IAB 
>> oversight of the RFC Series via delegation to the RFC Series 
>> Oversight Committee (RSOC), as well as the relationship between the 
>> IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC.  The IAB 
>> and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined in [RFC 
>> 2850] and [RFC 4071], so that changes to those responsibilities are 
>> out of scope.
>>
>> The review period will last until July 30, 2011.    If you have read 
>> the document and have comments, please send comments to iab at iab.org, 
>> with a CC: to rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org.  If you have read the 
>> document and approve without any suggested changes, please also 
>> respond stating your opinion.
>>
>> Information on the changes made in the latest version of the document 
>> is provided in the message from Joel M. Halpern (editor) below.
>>
>> [For the IAB],
>>
>> Bernard Aboba
>>
>> IAB Chair
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Joel M. Halpern* <jmh at joelhalpern.com>
>> Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02.txt
>> To: "rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
>>
>> A new version of this document has been posted.
>> Based on the discussions that led to it, I wish to call the 
>> rfc-interest list's attention to two items in the document.  Please 
>> use a separate subject line in following up, and select the 
>> appropriate copy list.
>>
>> Before I get to the two comments, a note of thanks.  The IAOC 
>> provided significant restructuring of the document.  This made the 
>> document MUCH more readable.  Thank you.
>>
>> 1) The IAOC provided specific text describing the vendor selection 
>> process.  This is intended to preserve the spirit of the previous 
>> versions of the document, while aligning it with BCP 101 and being 
>> clearer about what has to actually happen.  Several folks have 
>> expressed concern that it also changes the the degree to which the 
>> RSE is involved in the selection.  Others expressed disagreement. 
>>  This text has been reviewed by the IAB, but input from the broader 
>> community is sought.
>>
>> 2) As the RSOC began working, it was noted that the requirement in 
>> this document for documentation of the rules of the RSOC, and of the 
>> selection process for the RSE, seem much more strict here than in 
>> RFCs guiding other selection processes and bodies.  The text may well 
>> be more onerous than is needed to ensure suitable community 
>> transparency. Opinions on whether this can be relaxed, and suggested 
>> text, are solicited.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Joel M. Halpern
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20110701/09421533/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list