[rfc-i] [IAB] Comprehensive review of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - RSOC

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Sun Jul 10 16:34:49 PDT 2011



--On Monday, July 11, 2011 09:43 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I think this conundrum explains why I don't think that the
> "IAB Program" model is the correct one. I haven't deviated
> from the view I formed in Beijing that the RSOC should be a
> stand-alone committee within the RFC Editor function,
> collaborating with the IAOC and reporting to the IAB (and the
> community) as needed. I see nothing in the IAB charter to
> forbid this.

Brian,

Nothing in the IAB Charter (or anywhere else) forbids it.  But
it changes the reporting relationships in at least one and
probably two fundamental ways:

(1) "Reporting" is ambiguous and "collaborating" isn't much
better.  If you mean "sends periodic reports to the IAB but has
primary responsibility to the IAOC _and_ the RSOC is more than
just advisory, it changes the primary, line responsibility of
the RFC Editor from the IAB to the IAOC.   That change may be
formal, or just in practice, but, if the RSE is responsible to
the RSOC and the RSOC is responsible to the IAOC, then we've
made a rather basic change.   If you mean something else, please
explain _exactly_ what you are talking about.

(2) Regardless of how much it dilutes or confuses it (or permits
others to do that), it seems to be that neither the Charter nor
precedents going back to pre-IETF permit the IAB to shed the
responsibility for the RFC Editor.  Unless it is essentially
going to blow that responsibility off, organizing the RSOC as I
think you are suggesting then requires that the IAB (as a whole
or through some internal committee) has to actively watch the
whole situation rather than, e.g., delegating that to
RSOC-as-a-Program.  Expecting the whole IAB to engage on the RFC
Editor and pay attention has been, to put it politely,
unrealistic for many years.

    john





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list