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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 6/23/22 10:15 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 23.06.22 23:31, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Ok by me then.

Great. Thanks to Colin for sharing his thoughts on this point.

Peter