[rfc-i] On two committees

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Nov 29 19:26:57 PST 2010

At 4:09 PM +1300 11/30/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 2010-11-30 12:02, Bob Braden wrote:
>> Suppose that the community developed a consensus to make the PDF(/A)
>> version of RFCs normative. This would cause the EIOC to make that
>> a "policy", which the RSE would then be instructed to carry out?
>In my fantasy, the RSE would write a policy proposal, bring it
>to the REOC, it would get debated with the community, and the
>REOC would make a consensus call. And if it was a big enough deal
>to be considered "general policy" it would then go to the IAB
>for an up/down decision.
>I don't think that in that scenario, anyone would need to give
>instructions to the RSE.

Your response makes me even more glad that Bob asked the clarifying question.

Another model is that the RSE makes a proposal, gets an initial "won't scream" response from the REOC, and the RSE brings it to the community and makes the consensus call. He then takes that to the REOC who decides (a) if the consensus is strong and (b) is this a big enough deal to take to the IAB. (Changing the normative document format would absolutely qualify.)

The difference between what some people are saying here and the IAD/IAOC model is that the IAD is not meant to be the champion / representative of the IETF process, whereas the RSE is supposed to do some of that for the RFC series. Comparing this to local governments in the US, the question is similar to the two major models used: "strong mayor with mostly advisory council" vs. "figurehead mayor with an actively-managing council". Both could work for the RSE / REOC model, but we need to choose ahead of time.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list