Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

> On Apr 29, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Allisa,

s/Allisa/Alissa/

> I am not following your reasoning.
> Sean brought this up as a change he was asking this working group to consider.  It was not brought up by the IAB.  It was not brought to the IAB.  It was brought to this working group.  it is clearly out of scope for this working group.

My point is that while there will not be a WG consensus call on this document, I think it is helpful to have this group discuss the document since the expertise is here and the document’s whole reason for being is the same as this WG’s reason for being.

As I noted in my prior mail, I thought the plan for this doc and the other IAB stream bis documents was to discuss them here prior to the IAB running its usual call for community comment for IAB stream documents. This is my understanding from talking to Ted. We have had prior threads on this document on this list, as well as threads about rfc4844bis. I found those helpful. From my perspective as an IAB member, it is useful to see these initial rounds of discussion from a focused group of people who have put a lot of thought into these documents before the IAB does a call for community comment on them. I can’t speak for the rest of the IAB.

Alissa

> 
> Some folks have claimed that it is not a policy change.  If it is not a policy change, then it does not appear to be necessary.  If it is a policy change, it does not seem to be appropriate.
> 
> As a separate matter for whomever wants to consider this outside of the working group, there are multiple aspects of make the RSE an employee that would cause me concern.  For example, hiring part time employees who may also want to be free to engage in contract work for other people is doable but distinctly non-trivial.  The current approach was approved by the community.  And it demonstrably works.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 4/29/19 10:09 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>> On Apr 26, 2019, at 8:29 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As far as I can tell, the change you propose is not necessary to get the LLC working.  This working group was specifically chartered NOT to change any policies.  The change you (and Sean if I understand properly) are proposing represents a change in policy.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I disagree with the change in policy.  I think it would be a mistake.
>>> 
>>> But more importantly, that change is clearly outside of the scope the community was told applied to this working group.
>> As noted previously, since this is an IAB stream document, this list is being used for discussion prior to the IAB processing the doc. I wouldn’t expect a WG consensus call on this document.
>>> 
>>> If you want to write a separate I-D, and try to find a venue for it, to change that policy, you clearly have the right and skills to do so.
>>> But please do not put that substantive change into this I-D (RFC revision) that is specifically to make the necessary changes so the LLC can do the jobs it needs to do.
>> It seems that such a document would also need to be an IAB stream document, in which case having a mailing list where interested people are subscribed would still be a useful thing to have as a discussion venue prior to the IAB processing. So I don’t see how shifting to a separate I-D changes anything.
>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 4/26/19 6:39 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>>>> What I fail to see is why there is any need to change the wording that we have on the status of the RSE.  I can imagine that the LLC will need to continue to exercise care in the handling of the RSE to avoid accidental changes of status.  As you say John, it is tricky.
>>>>> But I do not see why that should result in any change to the text in the revision of RFC 6635.
>>>> Assuming we agree that the details of the agreement with the RSE are up to the LLC, I agree.
>>>> But RFC 6635 says "The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor," and " The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through an IASA Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in Section 4.1." and " The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through an IASA RFP process as described in Section 4.1."
>>>> I think the current RFC people are doing a swell job but I would like us to give the LLC the latitude to structure things however makes sense.  At this point, we have a contractor which hires its staff but at some point it might make sense for the LLC to hire staff without an intermediary.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20