Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03> (RFC Editor Model (Version 2))

Alissa Cooper <> Fri, 27 September 2019 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0E0120073 for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=UTNifDTd; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ugrwPvqB
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P6mejHDz95nK for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9520B120043 for <>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 120DA6D5; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:34:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; s=fm1; bh=JMKL/NhvSJ CSPpclbq8tL5VQsx/g7ZM9tmaLG+qXFd0=; b=UTNifDTdkodLcvPZVhLeQnP1cO tZzQSqf6FnBkPUREaKu0cQ3c0irU2ZMH6KwdTvafJD6Td5aCmemrgvCTPK8NjBMK zdhi3Khf0KhNaruG9nnkeqZr/6b3Nu/tYsWxcutSn0qRZqBTbKvFaIu8HcfzP7N9 UBQLcUlIdJjDcQQXDpwh0YcUT4iZ/Bd/J96Mr6em/x+9UGclYLy9K1eiyZzmB9vp X9i+e7UwvvntkvAkNxc1/zPMmdqpesjrtBtipECk7jJK6LZ7nDFM+OtTmErJcS9d 3jernEDB6bXlhmfLPhc08+Ece6Ai/m/Toxg2fQYrsWrL6gK29+jI3oRMvt2g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=JMKL/NhvSJCSPpclbq8tL5VQsx/g7ZM9tmaLG+qXF d0=; b=ugrwPvqBCC6KTBMNJAXDn6fHMdQL6szKEMdQW6ZScqv8g0hNLaQy/azoi HwF6WOEQ9xwzCClKmuvWYCWoVrsnFwNrQGtxGyAJkb8gxXcx45nCfa3wKFzjFBhR n3C09cJAUalLEDtJiXjjXfZNcOex2oZg5UxzswsMExG7AlmYVGmjB0bumonbb82A //w3UBZ5ihYK2lEnhHiM40JPx4JjP1DTAaBpPrntat0JsSuu9CDM6aDzlVl1G437 MEaHs3G1YcZNDt2kT7ErPT1vLKVpOFUBdmEJX+LpdrfWPlhdKe1F01awhaEwdn+b 8sCoxkAFfdTB0XyjuqGYO5+QfL07Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:zg-OXdkBT03mf7T7XKqtNy3hWQRdAUvedcn20k3uP0VFZufUofV75A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrfeeigdeigecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephfgtgfgguffffhfvjgfkofesthhqmh dthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestgho ohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivghtfhdroh hrghenucfkphepfeekrdelkedrfeejrddufeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm pegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:zg-OXa4CLRjtaF610Qbm7m_jGry8TkTqFSiH-FtS9YRksl_U6MzXDA> <xmx:zg-OXRx-z5DW6NJb8vXr28jilrIi2r-7Ml08gpwKIoNJN4DvB_2xZw> <xmx:zg-OXShOS0lJLQTmjDnI-UJ3P8TC7KEJ9-cDxnVXdHH2gLyoa9qSwQ> <xmx:zg-OXSRP6Fn1AL75VJBpA2AJ-sQVql5m04QHRgoWd48qf5X-zwm9Kw>
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 190E880064; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:33:55 +0100
References: <>
To:, The IAB <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03> (RFC Editor Model (Version 2))
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:34:11 -0000


I have some comments on this document.

Section 1:

s/The IAB maintains it's/The IAB maintains its/

s/Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/

Section 2.1:

"The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the LLC Board and the
   stream managers."

Given that the LLC Board is an oversight body operating at a strategic level, I think this would make more sense if it said "LLC" (which includes LLC staff and contractors, including tools people) rather than "LLC Board."

Section 2.1.7:

The LLC is in the process of adopting a conflict of interest policy that will apply to all staff, contractors, and board directors <>. Since the RSE will be bound by that policy, I think Section 2.1.7 should be removed to avoid confusion about which policy applies.

Section 3.1:

"For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
 firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
 decision is the responsibility of the IAB."

Since the LLC is the contract holder, it needs to have final decisional authority about hiring and firing, e.g. if it is unable to negotiate suitable contract terms with a candidate. I would suggest the following edit:

"For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but approval of these recommendations is the responsibility of the IAB."

Section 4.2:

"The RFC Series portion of the LLC budget shall include entries for
   the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.  The LLC
   budget shall also include entries for the streams, including the
   independent stream."

Since RFC 6635 was published I can't recall seeing a budget that had a line item for RSOC or for "the streams," so this text has seemingly not matched actual practice for some time. More generally, allowing the LLC some flexibility about how the line items appear seems warranted given that the LLC has this flexibility for the rest of the budget. I would suggest the following edit:

"The LLC budget shall include funding to support the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, the RFC Publisher, and the Independent Submissions Editor."

Section 4.4:

   "If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences, it falls under [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis]; thus, the
   RSE must identify the issue and provide his or her advice to the LLC;
   additionally, if the RSOC has provided advice, forward that advice as

This sentence is not grammatically correct. I'm not sure what to suggest as it seems to be stating something obvious, but perhaps I'm not able to understand the point being made.



> On Sep 4, 2019, at 9:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager <> wrote:
> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03.
> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC 
> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
> <>
> The Call for Comment will last until 2019-10-02. Please send comments to
> and
> Abstract
>   The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the
>   responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC
>   Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.
>   Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series
>   Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship
>   between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company and the
>   RSOC.  This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor
>   Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and obsoletes RFC 6635 to
>   replace all references to the IASA and related structures with those
>   defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.
>   [RFC Editor: Please remove the following paragraph prior to
>   publication.]
>   The IASA2 WG requests that the IAB publish this replacement for RFC
>   6635.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list