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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Alissa,

> On Sep 27, 2019, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have some comments on this document.

Thanks for reviewing the document.

> 
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> s/The IAB maintains it's/The IAB maintains its/
> 
> s/Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/

Good

> 
> 
> 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.”
> 

That is fixed in -03.


> 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 <https://github.com/ietf-llc/policies-consultation/blob/master/Conflict-of-Interest-00.md>. 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.
> 

As Brian Carpenter said, I think it would be a mistake to not say anything.  His proposed text seems reasonable to me, it is:

  The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict of
  interest or judgment in performing these roles.  To ensure this,
  the RSE will be subject to a conflict of interest policy
  established by the LLC.


> 
> 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.”

I think that is an improvement on the text.


> 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.”

I don’t read this as requiring line items in a published budget, for example, like the one at:

https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_2019_Budget_Public_2018-12-19.pdf

I think it was saying the LLC should be budgeting and tracking these activities, how it reports this to the community is a different matter.  That said, I think your text is clearer, but I think it’s a mistake to call out the RSOC here, as that is clearly part of the IAB.  So I suggest:

OLD:

   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.

NEW:

   The RFC Series portion of the LLC budget shall include funding to support
   the RSE, RFC Production Center, RFC Publisher, and the Independent Stream.


> 
> 
> 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
>   well."
> 
> 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.

That is quite a sentence, too many editors here :-)

How about:

   If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual
   consequences, it falls under [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis].  If this happens
   the RSE must identify the issue and provide advice to the LLC.
   Additionally, if the RSOC has also developed advice, it should forward that
   advice to the LLC.

   The LLC must notify the RSOC and IAB regarding the action it
   concludes is required to resolve the issue based on its applicable
   procedures and provisions in the relevant contracts.

Thanks,
Bob


> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 9:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager <[e-mail]> 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:
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis/>
>> 
>> The Call for Comment will last until 2019-10-02. Please send comments to
>> [e-mail] and [e-mail].
>> 
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss