[rfc-i] Comparatively minor questions on the motivations

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Wed Jan 5 10:49:08 PST 2011

On Dec 21 I said:
> > BTW, I found the motivations draft far more clear than the model draft
> > on what your recommendation is for the RSAG.   This at least answered
> > my confusion on that point.

Below are my previous comments (the "my confusion" above) on the model overview
draft, which I had sent to Glenn and the IAB, and I'm now forwarding to the
rest of the list FYI.   Some of my questions were answered in the motivations
doc, but the overview doc needs some edits to reflect the answers, in my

contains a marked up copy with my comments inline.   Some of my comments have been made by others,
but I wanted to send independent comments regardless.   Not being an expert in this area, my comments
are mainly about things that are unclear about what is being proposed.

To summarize the main points of my feedback:
1)	The draft contradicts itself as to whether the RSE reports to the REOC or not.
2)	There is some confusion resulting from the IAOC not appearing in the diagram, or (perhaps
more appropriately) in a separate diagram.
3)	Various places talk about "interact with" or "coordination" or "cooperation" or "facilitate" without
explaining what this entails.   If the relationship is an inherent part of the model, more information
would help clarify.  Ideally 1 sentence of elaboration for each instance would suffice.
4)	The proposed division of labor between the RSAG and REOC is fuzzy in some areas.   For example,
section 5.1.1 proposes the REOC "support" the RSE editor in developing policy  proposals,
whereas the RSAG is to "advise the RSE".    In section 6.2, when the RSE conducts an inter-stream
review, it implies the RSE selects a review committee from the REOC, but the RSAG is not mentioned.
Since the RSAG is an RSE-appointed committee whereas the REOC is an IAB-appointed committee, 
this seems odd.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list