[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Wed Jun 29 08:47:15 PDT 2011


You are asking an important question.
The obverse question was raised in an earlier comment, which is why 
there is a slight re-wording here.
And I may well have gotten it wrong.

I believe we agree that the first sentence you quote is the primary 
intent, which is why I did not change that.

The challenge which was raised is taht it is very hard for that larger 
community to be fully consulted, and in particular it is very hard for 
that larger community to be the "arbiter", since we have no clean way to 
judge what it says.
Nonetheless, the IAB and the RSE are supposed to consider those larger 
interests.

The previous wording lead to the thought that somehow the RSE / RSOC / 
IAB had to judge the agreement of the larger community as arbiter.  That 
seems ineffective.

Can you suggest wording taht more strongly captures teh balance, while 
being implementable?

Thank you,
Joel

On 6/29/2011 10:50 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> At 14:25 27-06-2011, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> 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
>
>  From Section 3.1.2.1.2 of the previous version of the draft:
>
> "All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
> community. The community is the arbiter of policy. The RSE must
> consult with the community on policy issues."
>
> And from Section 2.1.2.1.2 of the current version:
>
> "All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the Internet
> community. The IETF community is the arbiter of policy. The RSE
> must consult with the IETF community on policy issues."
>
> The IAB has done a good job in striking a balance between the IETF
> community and the larger community when it comes to RFC Editor policy.
> In this version of the draft the IETF community takes over as the
> arbiter of policy. Section 3.1 mentions that:
>
> "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."
>
> There isn't any mention of "IETF community" in the last sentence.
>
> As far as I am aware, the people responsible for RFC Editor policy have
> always reached out to the IETF community in matters of policy. I don't
> recall the discussion about subjugating policy matters to the IETF. Feel
> free to correct me if I got it wrong.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list