[rfc-i] On two committees

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Nov 30 03:35:47 PST 2010

On Nov 27, 2010, at 1:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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
> Committee.
> 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.

The IAB, indeed a group with Architecture in its name has a lot other responsibilities to. It also has the word 'Board' in its name and a number of chartered responsibilities for which it is to act as a board. RFC Editor oversight is one of those responsibilities. 

RFC 5741 can reasonably be argued to be a document that is far removed from oversight, to the point where it is 'engineering'. I am therefore going to ignore that particular example.

When you say "IAB stepping up to the mark" it sounds like you argue that the IAB stepped into a void. I would argue that RFC2850 sect 2 (d) does provide the IAB with an oversight role. In particular with respect to appointment and general policies. 

Concretely, for my understanding:
Are you arguing that the IAB does not have an oversight role? Or is this reacting to e.g. the IAB not being effective at this responsibility? 

If it is the latter there are other ways of addressing that then forming a new body, have you been considering those?



Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20101130/829a7e4b/attachment.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list