[rfc-i] Overview document available

SM sm at resistor.net
Sun Nov 7 12:36:18 PST 2010

Hi Glen,

I'll start by thanking you once again for making the regular reports 
publicly available and for the smooth transition.  I haven't seen any 
reports from the ISE but that's a different story.

At 20:05 06-11-10, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand.  Can you ask this question a bit more 
>narrow or differently?

The Overview PDF mentions "must provide the overall leadership and 
management of RFC Editor functions".  Can that be done under RFC 5620 
or should there be a change for that to be possible?

>SM - you're asking about this during my tenure as TRSE yes?  During 
>this period (starting 1 March), no issues were brought to the IAB.

Yes, it is during your tenure as TSRE.  Thanks for the answer.

>Re RSAG comment, I don't muzzle the RSAG, but when, where and how 
>they should comment, and to whom, is below the level of the draft, 
>except they are expected to interact with the IAB as described.


>In short, I did not want to create situations in which the different 
>parties, including possible the
>RSE,  might feel the need to put pressure on the ISE.  That could 
>threaten the ISE's independence, which is unacceptable.  An 
>alternative might be to add RFC-Editor oriented
>submission processes to the ISE's practices; I think the same 
>problems independence
>problems could result.  From the draft, Section 10. "Re-Establishing 
>an RFC Editor Stream Capability":

It is good to apply the same yardstick to others as what we would 
apply to ourselves.  If the RSE cannot "talk to" the ISE and get work 
then, it becomes a problem.  Solving the problem of RSE RFC 
publication by creating a new stream is a politically correct 
alternative.  My preference is not to take that path.  If you believe 
it is the better choice, I'll defer to you on this.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list