[rfc-i] On two committees

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 12:18:19 PST 2010


See below:

On 2010-12-01 00:35, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 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.
> Agreed.
>> 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?

Neither. The IAB definitely has an oversight role, and has clearly been
executing it for the last three years or so. My point is that the community
has consistently asked for *more* technical architectural guidance from the IAB,
and less time spent on "administrative" work. Also, my recollection from
my years in the IAB is that without exception, every single new IAB member was
shocked by the amount of non-technical issues that the IAB spends time on.

To me, that says that a very explicit goal should be to extract the IAB from
the details of oversight here (just as BCP 101 extracted the IESG and IETF Chair
from the details of oversight of the Secretariat etc.). And of course it's
Management 101 that you do that by delegating the routine oversight to
another committee.

I have a preference for that other committee to be selected by some sort of
community process rather than appointed by the IAB; that seems to be
the Internet way.

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

Not really. I'd like the IAB to do Architecture projects, that's all.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list