[rfc-i] Intended Publication: RFC Editor Model (draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-02.txt)

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Nov 22 16:37:30 PST 2008

On Nov 22, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> I wanted to come back to this point to follow up my remarks at the  
> plenary meeting the other day, and further Jim's point:
> [From the document]
>>   The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by  
>> the
>>   community and confirmed by the IAB.  An approach similar to the one
>>   used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year as
>>   described in Appendix A should be used.  A stipend (if provided)  
>> and
>>   expenses to support the administrative operation of the Independent
>>   Submission Editor selected in this manner would be not be part of  
>> the
>>   IASA budget, but could be part of a 3rd party's budget.
> Certainly, the expectation/requirement of the Independent stream is  
> that
> it be independent (of the IETF) in content.  So, it would make little
> sense to ask the IETF to support it (financially).
> However, when we put together BCP 101, there was the expectation that
> the IASA would serve all the elements of the IETF:
> [From BCP101]
>> The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the
>>   administrative structure required to support the IETF standards
>>   process and to support the IETF's technical activities.  As of the
>>   time at which this document was written, this included the work of
>>   IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF.  Should the
>>   IETF standards process at some future date come to include other
>>   technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing  
>> plans to
>>   provide administrative support for them.  Such support includes, as
>>   appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the work described in
>>   [RFC3716], including IETF document and data management, IETF
>>   meetings, and any operational agreements or contracts with the RFC
>>   Editor and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).  The  
>>   is also ultimately responsible for the financial activities
> It is certainly the case that the IAB has historically supported the
> Independent Submissions part of the RFC Editor function through the
> IASA, even when it was not clear the IETF had consensus to fund it.
> The IASA role provides a framework for supporting administrative
> activities (financially and organizationally).   That includes  
> process,
> expectations of openness, etc.
> So, given that it can be done (independently) through the IASA, it
> really isn't clear to me why the IAB doesn't want to do that.
> ISTM that taking it to "a 3rd party" would require hammering out  
> pretty
> much the same sort of process framework as we did for the IASA, even  
> if
> on a smaller scale.  There have to be pieces in place to be clear over
> who has responsibility and rights for which (funding) decisions.
> Again -- really not clear to me why taking it out of the IASA is
> perceived as a win.

Thanks Leslie... this provides a piece of corporate history and a  
perspective that I think makes more sense than the text that I  
tentatively provided a week or so ago.

What I wrote then was:

Olaf wrote:
> I have tentatively made the following edit (the text between  
> brackets):
>  	A stipend (which the IAB believes should be provided)
> 	and expenses to support the administrative operation of the
> 	Independent Submission Editor selected in this manner would
> 	be not be part of the IASA budget, but could be part of a
> 	3rd party's budget.
> The reason why it is tentative is that it is close to what a good  
> friend of me would refer to as "The IAB wants a pony".

Whenever that good friend says "X wants a pony" I interpret that to  
mean that X can want all the ponies in the world but  X' parents will  
not give X a pony. (X is often a spoiled brat). I noticed the tension  
between the fact that the "IAB believes such stipend should be  
provided" and the fact that the IAB sort of hopes that funding  will  
happen magically but did not have an immediate answer, while it is  
glaring in the scriptures.

Pondering about this I think that it is more responsible for the IAB  
to say, we guard the Independence of the stream while we take  
responsibility for its continuity by funding through the IASA than to  
say we solve the Independence by betting on another organization to  
take it up.

The above were my personal thoughts. As the holder of the pen and the  
guard that this document comes to a closure: I think it is fair to say  
that while we have decided for the Independent Submissions Editor to  
be a function within the RFC Editor universe there may be one or two  
things to be hammered out. In other words we are not opening the model  
but refining some of it.  Fortunate is that this does not structurally  
modify the statement of works or the interfaces with the other  
organizations on which the IAOC is working on.

About to board, AFK for a few days.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081122/c2b5a3f0/PGP-0001.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list