[rfc-i] On two committees

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Nov 30 03:45:52 PST 2010

On Nov 29, 2010, at 8:48 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

>> 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.
> I agree that there needs to be community-accountable oversight of the
> RSE, and I agree that the IAB does not want to perform that role.

I would argue that that 'whether the IAB wants to perform that role' is one of the questions on the table. It depends a lot on the shape of that role and how it is being envisioned.

Hence my clarifying questions to Brian earlier.

For clarity, I am endorsing nor rejecting the proposal, I want to understand it.



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/d592d734/attachment.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list