[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 11:33:38 PDT 2011

	I don't claim to understand consensus on this list for these
	questions, but my personal answers follow...

Earlier Dave Crocker wrote:
>  1.  For matters of policy, is the final assessment done by the IAB?  If not, 
>  then who?  By final, I mean top of the appeals chain, if there is one.(*)

Top of the appeals chain is the IAB, because our existing process
documents specify that the IAB is responsible for the RFC Series.

Side commentary:
	One would not expect (m)any appeals in normal operation, 
	instead expecting that the RSE and RSOC would sort things out.  
	One also expects that the RSE, RSOC, and IAB would use the 
	rfc-interest list to solicit input/feedback and as a place 
	where RFC topics could be discussed in general.

> 2.  Whoever does that final assessment, is the decision make
> based on their own preferences or based on their sense of community
> rough consensus, for some definition of community?

For appeals, IAB's best judgement -- primarily based upon community consensus.

Side commentary:
	My belief is that the "rfc-interest" mailing list 
	discussions ought to be included in measuring consensus.

	I would not want to limit the IAB to only using that mailing 
	list.   IAB folks also might receive input at IETF, IRTF, *NOG,
	research venues, or other meetings.  The IAB ought to have the 
	option to use other mechanisms to solicit additional inputs.

	In order to be inclusive of folks beyond the IETF, when a 
	major topic arises (IAB's best judgement on whether a particular 
	topic is major), then some active outreach beyond IETF/IRTF/ISOC 
	to the broader community should happen -- so those other folks 
	know that the topic is under discussion, that they are welcome
	to participate in discussion, and where the topic is being
	discussed (e.g. rfc-interest list).



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list