[rfc-i] draft-iab-ise-model-03 comments

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 17:39:16 PDT 2011

Hi Ted,

I generally support this draft pretty much as-is, but just to
comment on your comments:

On 2011-10-27 08:25, Ted Hardie wrote:
> The document currently says:
>    The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the
>    Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by [RFC4844
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4844>]
> I find the "is the head of the ... Stream" to sound a bit odd; manages,
> edits, or is responsible for sound better to me.


> The document currently says:
>    The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
>    assistants and who is responsible for:
> At least in the past, a team could and did volunteer to serve; whether they
> organized themselves as lead and assistants or equals was not really the
> point.  I would suggest "is an individual or team who is responsible for:"

It isn't clear to me, however, that a team can really be viable without
a designated team leader, or at least a designated convenor. Maybe "assistants"
conveys the wrong message, though - this would clearly be a team of
equals. I think this could be wordsmithed to give the IAB some discretion
when making the appointment.

> The document currently says that the ISE is responsible for:
> 4.  Defining and developing the scope of the Independent Submission
>        stream.
> I believe I understand this meaning, but it probably needs something
> that acknowledges that
> this development has to take place within the context of the overall
> rfc-editor model.  The ISE
> obviously cannot determine that the independent submission stream can
> contain Internet Standards.
> Perhaps "Defining and developing the scope of the Independent
> Submission stream as a part of the
> overall RFC editor function (citation)"?


> I note that the ISE may appoint both an Advisory board and an
> Editorial board; in the second case,
> it is noted explicitly that the members serve at the pleasure of the
> ISE.  It might be valuable to
> do so explicitly for the first case as well, just for completeness.

I agree. Also, the distinction between a small Advisory Board and a
team as you suggested above might be almost indiscernible.


   Brian Carpenter

> regards,
> Ted Hardie

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list