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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 27 September 2019 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02418120A7B for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ByhsAf0VOfD for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119B312013D for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id 205so2187337pfw.2 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fx1fHHtXTVfswIMzDeCvNhX5GvM5jRFbeilFpoau20w=; b=C4mFxaCcRrbeoPwcZvKr7q/bXU2oHAm06BKNzsCgQ2TdqsfqfwS4LxZO6rL03wuzuT erobvFVcg3E2VhAQ5Be7NgI5v0rNOZJZRDPWxZ7rdwS9ArnK20Ey4AJ20tTBdgQtJb/q grYeX4jFzZsYuiwIXfOAlJEe6iSuPxhdGfRi+nA0T2+yTtBcA4iLAib2TYmhFv27yGvd BtlWYELBz7XEApMKCST51jODzFJIN90AX1iILQtHYIkL9/BjYmfngfwxzVwVfcD2dKf6 NjzLEPBXPcrYdgJHnUgaaAkhnlpwSJgyhFwfqww02LKCbuQW9JomwT7Dp4AaV/E7WPvO zdIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fx1fHHtXTVfswIMzDeCvNhX5GvM5jRFbeilFpoau20w=; b=gxY/7A+9oRxfNn/Kwo/jFzLCV/ZtCf2rdzHTmiLICR9uX0TAEmnZaIj6wEDeE4DCRU LjKg3ZGhajeQjVxkbxppBRAS0c7HmOW3L/zT+X44UPQT0MDpBs+xhQ4ldLEhn//XAqPE bLoTPcX2qagmgT8BqiLqud+QEAab2RDXm6K0V/JqQksMV708tQcdn8HHLMgP8TBs/+kq j+PXTHvDfrqV0IjfKiuxpSCEdugopFkXOpK6m+ZEwtOdd3vZhq9i0trzvPB1bIw9Q8cK tCyxrllll9EkpfuPKjOePjP0qhaYMpu/pUUJ2nU6bsYvCotb3orarl5GH4PV+ypkwd7p J1yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWh+IPZUeC8d6Yv55NWnjJmxOY9jjYwO0eQu1OBlK+q8HB5gS/2 qpHcKGAJ3hFYk7Xt1XU9ikscZnL5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6ZXyT3TiwDHzwMJFor8lxgZbVgjR5y/MhnlPaIi5GSR1zAPRzGGy5E7Kasr6qiMG9UInq6w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b001:: with SMTP id x1mr12292533pjq.114.1569615364446; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (82.206.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.206.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d76sm7169690pga.80.2019.09.27.13.16.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, The IAB <iab@iab.org>
References: <156763077985.22753.8206505094680303304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A212688E-FDE7-43EF-9244-BBE8B27AA2D4@cooperw.in>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d43cb2f8-9a24-aaae-5aef-dc941f99c381@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:16:00 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A212688E-FDE7-43EF-9244-BBE8B27AA2D4@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/o-jrQ9KBadyyYrqncM2czIN-H9A>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03> (RFC Editor Model (Version 2))
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 20:16:14 -0000

Hi Alissa,

One general comment is that I suppose that this is really "RFC Editor Model (Version 2.1)" since it's a small variant on Version 2, and I imagine we'll be having a Version 3 in not very long, with more fundamental changes. In any case I think the title really should be slightly updated.

On 28-Sep-19 01:33, Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
> 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.

I think that completely removing the section would be a mistake, since it makes a fairly important statement about the RSE's neutrality (something I think we will be boosting when it comes time for Version 3, so this section is also a placeholder). But of course you are correct that we don't want any inconsistency with the LLC policy. Could I suggest that the section is reduced to:

2.1.7.  Conflict of Interest

   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.

Regards
    Brian