Re: [auth48] [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9280 <draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13> for your review

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

On 23 Jun 2022, at 19:33, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Hi Rebecca,
>
> Thanks for your work on this important document.
>
> Here are a few proposed edits. I would like the Program chairs and the IAB to make sure they are comfortable with these changes before you make these edits.
...
> SECTION 3.1.2.3
>
> The following two sentences are in potential conflict:
>
> 3.1.2.3
>
>    The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving bodies (IESG, IAB,
>    IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall determine their own processes for
>    appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are
>    described in Section 5).
>
> 4.4
>
>    *  If there is a conflict with a policy for a particular stream, to
>       help achieve a resolution, the RPC should consult with the
>       relevant stream approving body (such as the IESG or IRSG) and
>       other representatives of the relevant stream as appropriate.
>
> In 3.1.2.3, the IRTF Chair is described as a stream approving body (!), whereas in 4.4 the IRSG is described as a stream approving body. I suggest that we remove mention of stream approving bodies in 3.1.2.3 and make the following change.
>
> OLD
>
>    The appointing bodies, i.e., the stream approving bodies (IESG, IAB,
>    IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall determine their own processes for
>    appointing RSAB members (note that processes related to the RSCE are
>    described in Section 5).
>
> NEW
>
>    The appointing bodies (i.e., IESG, IAB, IRTF Chair, and ISE), shall
>    determine their own processes for appointing RSAB members (note that
>    processes related to the RSCE are described in Section 5).

I agree with this change.

For the IESG and IAB, the same group acts as appointing body for the RSAB and as the stream approving body. That’s not the case for the IRTF, where the appointing body for the RSAB is the IRTF Chair but the stream approving body is the IRSG.

The current text in Section 4.4 looks okay to me. I don’t object to Eliot’s proposed change there, but I also don’t think it’s necessary.

Colin