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

SM sm at resistor.net
Sat Nov 22 23:34:09 PST 2008

At 15:21 22-11-2008, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>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).

If you want true independence, yes.

>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.

Setting a separate process framework creates more complexity.  If the 
IAB wants to take responsibility for the RFC Editor function, it can 
either take the whole package or else pick and choose which parts it 
wants to support.  It won't ensure the continuity of the Series by 
funding the IETF parts only.

At 16:37 22-11-2008, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>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
>>         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.

If the IAB believes that a stipend should be provided, it has to 
identify where the money will come from instead of assuming that some 
third party will pay for it.  Lynn mentioned that ISOC may be 
predisposed to pay for it.

>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.

That sounds more responsible.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list