[rfc-i] [IAB] Comprehensive review of draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - RSOC
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 18:28:51 PDT 2011
On 2011-07-11 11:58, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Some comments below.
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM, John C Klensin <john+rfc at jck.com> wrote:
>> --On Monday, July 11, 2011 09:43 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think this conundrum explains why I don't think that the
>>> "IAB Program" model is the correct one. I haven't deviated
>>> from the view I formed in Beijing that the RSOC should be a
>>> stand-alone committee within the RFC Editor function,
>>> collaborating with the IAOC and reporting to the IAB (and the
>>> community) as needed. I see nothing in the IAB charter to
>>> forbid this.
>> Nothing in the IAB Charter (or anywhere else) forbids it. But
>> it changes the reporting relationships in at least one and
>> probably two fundamental ways:
>> (1) "Reporting" is ambiguous and "collaborating" isn't much
>> better. If you mean "sends periodic reports to the IAB but has
>> primary responsibility to the IAOC _and_ the RSOC is more than
>> just advisory, it changes the primary, line responsibility of
>> the RFC Editor from the IAB to the IAOC. That change may be
>> formal, or just in practice, but, if the RSE is responsible to
>> the RSOC and the RSOC is responsible to the IAOC, then we've
>> made a rather basic change. If you mean something else, please
>> explain _exactly_ what you are talking about.
> [BA] I don't believe that the intent is for the RSOC to have
> "responsibility" to the IAOC.
> The RSOC's responsibility is to the IAB.
Fully agreed. Does s/collaborating/cooperating/ help?
"reporting" is indeed ambiguous; what I meant would be better
expressed as "the RSOC is responsible to the IAB and
presents regular reports to the community."
>> (2) Regardless of how much it dilutes or confuses it (or permits
>> others to do that), it seems to be that neither the Charter nor
>> precedents going back to pre-IETF permit the IAB to shed the
>> responsibility for the RFC Editor. Unless it is essentially
>> going to blow that responsibility off, organizing the RSOC as I
>> think you are suggesting then requires that the IAB (as a whole
>> or through some internal committee) has to actively watch the
>> whole situation rather than, e.g., delegating that to
> [BA] Under RFC 2850, the IAB is responsible for the RFC Editor, and since
> the document does not update RFC 2850, that responsibility remains. The
> "RFC Editor Program" consists of one or more IAB members (the internal
> group) that are responsible for "actively watching" the situation on behalf
> of the IAB, as well as the non-IAB RSOC members. The document could
> perhaps do a better job of making this clear.
The way it's written confuses that (which is how the current IAB chooses
to organise its oversight of the RFC Editor) with the RSOC itself.
IAB Programs are *not* defined except by the will of the sitting IAB. I thought
we were trying to define something more permanent.
More information about the rfc-interest