[rfc-i] a possible refinement to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Mar 27 15:15:45 PDT 2009


Thanks for posting this suggestion.  It is quite clear that you have 
given it a lot of thought.

One thing that is vague to me, is the selection process for the 
RSE.  I think that the committee that you describe could select an 
individual for confirmation by the IAB.  This preserves the 
accountability to the IAB, which I think is very important.

The selection of the committee itself is also important, as are 
terms.  Since the point of the committee is stability, I think that a 
3 year term seems reasonable.  Using your suggestion for a six person 
committee,  two of them up for renewal every year.  I do not think 
that the IETF NomCom is the right way to find committee members -- 
you do not suggest that it is.  However, I think it is important that 
member selection is confirmed by the IAB.

I believe that the committee can provide a quick review of decisions 
made by the RSE when such a decision is challenged.  My hope is that 
the advice offered by such a review can resolve most concerns, and 
the ones that it does not resolve can be appealed to the IAB.

Finally, I really do not like the proposed name.  I prefer something 
with "Advisory" in it.  Perhaps "RFC Series Advisory Group".

Thanks for all of the work you are putting into this effort,

>The Proposal
>If the missing piece is the container function, let's put it back into
>draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.  Leave all the 4 functions (mostly) as they
>are, but introduce the RFC Editor Function (or Framework) committee as
>the focal point for binding them together, and populate it with living
>people, not an inanimate document.
>Specifically:  The RFC Editor Framework is a committee chartered by the
>IAB to oversee the interpretation and evolution of the RFC Series (as
>defined in RFC4844).  This takes the place of one of the advisory
>committees described in draft-iab-rfc-editor-model.  This committee
>"holds the flame" of the RFC Series, providing interpretation of the
>current definition, indicating when current implementation is in need of
>improvement, and invoking appropriate community discussion when change
>is needed.  It provides consistency and constancy of the RFC Series
>interpretation over time, and is a resource for the IAD in setting and
>managing contracts. It is responsible to the IAB:  any of its decisions
>are appealable to the committee and then to the IAB.  [I'm having a hard
>time really imagining WHAT decisions it will make, let alone why they
>would be appealable, but it seems important to specify].    The
>committee provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn provides guidance to
>the IAD for any decisions with contractual implications for the ISE,
>Production House, or Publisher.
>This committee is chartered with as much formality as, say, the IRTF:
>it's not a subcommittee or a temporary kludge.  The IAB appoints a chair
>for it (N.B.:  this does not need to be an IAB member).   Ex officio
>voting members are:  the RSE and the IAD.   The rest of the voting
>committee members (say, 6?) are selected based on their experience and
>interest in the RFC Series, and they serve at the pleasure of the IAB
>(though the selection process should probably include
>suggestions/nominations from the RSE, and the committee clearly has to
>be selected to work well with the RSE).  Additionally, each RFC stream
>has a (non-voting, non-member) liaison to the committee.
>To reiterate, because it is important:  the committee members are
>selected for their experience to help make this function work, NOT as
>"representatives" from different bodies.
>Either the RSE or this committee works with the IAB for purposes of
>fulfilling the IAB oversight role for the RFC Editor function.  [This
>unrolls to:  the IAB is outside this RFC Editor Framework box, and the
>IAB retains its oversight role, without having to get into the details
>it doesn't track today.  The IAB can clearly name a members to the
>committee, if it so desires.  The RSE is the natural liaison to the IAB.]

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list