[rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

Stephen Farrell stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Fri Aug 30 11:00:18 PDT 2019


Just on two of the more general points; (I'm sure Sarah or
someone else from RSOC will reply to the SOW specifics)...

On 30/08/2019 18:30, Michael StJohns wrote:
> This has the feel to me of a push towards a more "managed" RFC Editor vs
> the independent model we've had over the lifetime of the series - and
> doing it by small nibbles and by delay.

We had a joint IAB/RSOC call before these mails went out and
my estimation of that was there everyone who was on that call
really wanted the community to determine whether or not we
end up with a more "managed" RSE or a more independent one as
we have now. From what I've seen and heard, there are people
with varying opinions on that managed vs. independent continuum
both within and outside the IETF leadership. So, no, I don't
think it'd be fair to describe this as "a push towards" more
managed. (Given the history, I can understand if some people
have that impression though.)

> With respect to the evolution of the RFC Series - I haven't
> seen any clear statement from anyone of the changes they
> believe need to be made.

I don't believe we have a clear statement of changes that may
be desired. Partly, that's I guess because people have different
opinions as to where it's best to end up. But from chatting
with people, I do think there seems to be a fairly widespread
opinion that having the RSE be supposedly responsible for
day-to-day supervision of the RPC (as is called for in RFC6635)
isn't a good plan today. And that opinion seems to be held by
people from all parts of the managed vs. independent continuum
mentioned above. So while there isn't afaik anything like a
complete list of proposed changes, there do seem to be some
changes that may be uncontroversial and useful. (I'm fairly
sure there will also be some ideas in this space that will
be controversial:-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 10715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190830/fcc05260/attachment-0001.skr>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190830/fcc05260/attachment-0001.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list