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

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue Mar 13 09:02:40 PDT 2012


Hi Joel,
At 07:29 13-03-2012, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>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.

Thanks for the explanation.

>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.

Understood.

>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.

Ok.  I'll suggest text:

    The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure the
    functioning of the process; and while there is an evaluation of
    current policies to determine whether they are appropriately
    implemented or need adjustment.

I am not sure whether I captured the intent correctly.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list