[rfc-i] I-D Action:draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Mar 20 15:29:06 PDT 2011


Hi,

I think this is going in the right direction. The following comments are
essentially editorial, with perhaps one exception:

The document should be marked as Obsoletes: 5620.

> 2.  IAOC Implementation

I suggest "Administrative Implementation" as the section title.

>    The model is constructed in such a way that it sets boundary
>    conditions on whether these functions are to be implemented jointly
>    or under separate contractual arrangements.  The exact implementation
>    is a responsibility of the IAOC in cooperation with the RFC Series
>    Editor.

"IAOC" needs to be defined and there should be a reference to RFC 4071.

> 
> 2.1.  Expenses for the RFC Editor
> 
>    The expenses discussed in this document are not new expenses.  They
>    have been and remain part of the IASA budget.

"IASA" needs to be defined.

Just before section 3.1:

>    The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility.  

This needs references to RFC 2850 and 4071.

>                                                               More
>    details on the oversight by the IAB via the RSOC can be found in
>    Section 4.1.

Expand RSOC, as this is the first reference in the main text.

>    The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
>    contractors or personnel.  

This sounds very negative as written. How about:

 Therefore, the RSE does not have the direct authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
 contractors or personnel.

> 3.1.  RFC Series Editor

...
>    The RSE is appointed by the IAB, and hired by the IAOC.  

At first sight this reads paradoxically. I suggest

 The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the IAOC.

Towards the end of 3.1.1:

>    Create documentation and structures that will allow for the RFC
>    Series' continuity when circumstances engender the need for the
>    execution of the publication and/or production functions by other
>    vendors.

Dangling text - needs to become a sentence.

In 3.1.2.1.

s/his/his or her/

In 3.1.4.

>      In time the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision on
> 
>          the technical specification series, as it continues to evolve
>          beyond the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis;
>          and
> 
>          its publication-technical environment: slowly changing in terms
>          of publication and archiving techniques; the communities that
>          produce and depend on the RFC Series.  All of those communities
>          have been slowly changing to include significant multi-lingual
>          non-native-English populations.Some of them also have a primary
>          focus on the constraints and consequences of network
>          engineering, rather than a primary interest in the engineering
>          issues themselves.

This is waffle. I suggest reducing it to a few words that actually
convey meaning. Also, why would the series evolve beyond 'by engineers
for engineers'? This seems like a very good mantra. I don't think we have
consensus on changing this, do we?

> 4.1.1.  RSOC composition
> 
>    The RSOC will operate as a Program of the IAB, with the IAB retaining
>    final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
>    responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
>    relationships evolve.  Like other IAB Programs, the RSOC will include
>    people who are not current IAB members.  

I still believe it is a mistake to tie this to the current IAB's notion
of "Programs". The text can easily be adjusted in a way that makes it
perennial:

   The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB retaining
   final responsibility.  The IAB will delegate authority and
   responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
   relationships evolve.  The RSOC will include
   people who are not current IAB members.

In 4.1.2:

>    If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
>    consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC
>    and, if the RSAG has provided advice, forward that advice as well.

There is no RSAG in the model.

> 4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board
> 
>    Today the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the
>    review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This board is
>    expected to evolve in what we will call the Independent Submission
>    Stream Editorial Board. 

This text is OBE. Suggestion:

4.2.  Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board

   The Independent Submission Editor is supported by an Editorial Board for the
   review of Independent Submission stream documents.  This board is
   known as the Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board.

--
Regards
   Brian Carpenter


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list