[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-04.txt -3.1 & 4.3

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Mar 13 07:29:37 PDT 2012

In line...

On 3/13/2012 1:48 AM, SM wrote:
> In Section 3.1:
>    "The RSOC was expected to describe the process it ultimately
>     selected to the community and did involve the community in
>     interim considerations when that was likely to be of value."
> I don't understand the sentence.

Earlier versions of the document had text that indicated that the 
initial RSOC was going to do certain things first.  Inherently, whatever 
the initial RSOC was going to first it has already done.  Therefore, the 
wording needed to be adjusted.  The earlier wording was put in to 
reflect a desire for the RSOC to suitably involve the larger community 
in its early process.  It did so.  So I tried to capture that with 
minimal violence to the existing text, and without implying any error on 
the part of the RSOC for not doing something they were not mandated to do.

>    "Following completion of the selection process, the RSOC will
>     determine the best way to share information learned and experience
>     gained with the community and to determine how to best preserve that
>     information for future use."
> Is it important to have the above in this draft?
This text is a dirdirective to the RSOC for the near future.  It could 
be dealt with by the IAB stating it outside the document.  But it is an 
objective that is seen as important to the community, and therefore is 
captured here.

> In Section 4.3:
>    "The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the
>     functioning of the process and evaluation of whether current policies
>     are appropriately implemented in the decision or need adjustment."
> I have some difficulty parsing the above sentence.

The sentence makes somewhat more sense (although i can well believe it 
could use editing) in context.  The context is the section about 
disputes.   The RSE is being given explicit authority to keep the trains 
running on time, and to get enough information to know whether there are 
bigger issues, even if that requires making some unilateral decisions. 
Without this text, and with the unfortuantly capable imagination of the 
commentors, it was possible to envision situations where the whole RFC 
Editor process could be driven to a halt.  And that was unacceptable.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list