[rfc-i] On two committees

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 16:32:44 PST 2010

In brief:

In the model I have in mind, the RSE could choose
to appoint an advisory committee to advise him or her,
entirely at the RSE's discretion. Actually I reckon that
anybody, doing any job, can do this. No need for BCP text
about this.

The other part of my model is to introduce community-based
oversight in some form, just as we did when reorganising
IETF administration, which is why I suggested an Oversight

My not-hidden concern here is to ensure that there *is*
oversight while offering the IAB the chance to get out
of the details. Note, I am *not* criticising the IAB for
stepping up to the mark over the last couple of years;
somebody had to. But isn't it odd for a group with
"architecture" in its name to be responsible for documents
such as RFC 5741?

All details TBD of course, but that is my top level concern.

   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-11-27 09:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I'll send other comments under another thread, but this thread seems
> like a good place to talk about the number of committees.
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:12:52PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> OK, let me try again. Why did you pick this path instead of just
>> changing the RSAG to have the responsibilities you outline and
>> changing the way they are chosen? What is the advantage of having
>> the document specify "here's a new committee, and the old
>> committee's name is reused for a new purpose with a new way of being
>> chosen"?
> I think I agree with Paul.  In any case, I don't get the need for this
> new committee along with the possibly-but-maybe-not RSAG.
> It sort of looks to me like the REOC is a somewhat expanded version of
> the function suggested for the RSAG in RFC 5620, except that members'
> terms are shorter and with a less clear statement that they're
> selected by and, if necessary, removed by the IAB.
> As I did during the last round, I'm feeling very much the lack of any
> reasoning in the document for why particular suggestions are made.
> What problem is the REOC trying to solve, and why is it distinct from
> the RSAG?  I don't understand the need for it, and it looks to me like
> it creates yet another opportunity for community participants' time to
> be sunk into overhead activities.  I guess I sort of think that the
> RSAG is supposed to be the RSE's own advisors, but I don't understand
> why it's important to have an official list of who's whispering in the
> RSE's ear: if there's anything actually nefarious going on, then it
> will be secret anyway, and otherwise it's just decoration.
> So, I don't see why we need to have yet more officially-empanelled
> committees here.  My impression is that the IETF community is busily
> turning itself into a heavyweight bureaucracy, and anything that tends
> in that direction makes me nervous.  Having two different committees
> at this level sticks out to me as such bureacratic development.  I
> don't feel terribly strongly about it, but in the absence of arguments
> for it, I'd say that one of them could be eliminated.
> A

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list