Re: [Iasa20] Comments on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-01

["Leslie Daigle" <[e-mail]>]

So, I agree with this characterization 100%:

[Bob Hinden wrote:]
> The process is: the IAB decides who it want’s to be the RSE, it then 
> asks the [was IAOC | will be LLC] to negotiate a contract with that 
> person and report the results of that negotiation back to the IAB. If 
> the LLC can’t negotiate a contract, then the IAB will need to pick 
> someone else. The IAB decides who it wants for the RSE, and the LLC 
> implements that via a contract.

I think Richard’s later clarification works [*], but will note 
that’s an update to 6635bis (Alissa’s note was commenting on the 
seeming discrepancies between 4844bis and 6635bis, and the hiring/firing 
text was in the latter).

But, to make a larger point:  it’s not just hiring/firing/designating 
as a single decision point.  Every question of responsibility for the 
contract and the contractor lies, legally, with the LLC (e.g., if some 
future RSE turns out to be a serial killer, the LLC might take issue 
with continuing employment…).  ED involvement is non-optional.

What we have to get clear in these documents is that the contract is the 
LLC’s, and that it’s the tail.  The IAB owns the responsibility to 
ensure that the RFC Series continues to meet its mission, including the 
responsibility of identifying an appropriate RSE.  That responsibility 
is the dog.  (<difficult sentence about IAB wagging contract tail 
omitted for clarity>).

The fact that the IAB undertakes the fulfillment of the responsibility 
by working with the RSOC is 1/ smart and 2/  an implementation.

Both 4844bis and 6635bis might do with some clarification, but I don’t 
think the text is actually at odds between them, even now.

Leslie.




On 10 Feb 2019, at 0:21, Bob Hinden wrote:

> Richard,
>
>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 6:22 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> To the extent that the RSE is defined as "the person the IAB calls 
>> the RSE", then yes, you are undoubtedly correct.  The IAB has 
>> unquestionable authority to choose that person.
>>
>> To the extent that the RSE is the party of the RSE contract who is 
>> contracted and paid to act as RFC Series Editor, then no, the IAB and 
>> RSOC do not have the authority to choose that person, as long as they 
>> are not the other party to that contract.
>
> I don’t think that is the right way to describe it.   The process 
> is: the IAB decides who it want’s to be the RSE, it then asks the 
> [was IAOC | will be LLC] to negotiate a contract with that person and 
> report the results of that negotiation back to the IAB.  If the LLC 
> can’t negotiate a contract, then the IAB will need to pick someone 
> else.  The IAB decides who it wants for the RSE, and the LLC 
> implements that via a contract.
>
> Another reason why it good to have the IETF Executive Director be 
> liaison to the RSOC inorder to make this handoff go smoothly.
>
> Bob
>
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 8:45 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>> Not quite.
>> While the IETF LLC (or, before that, the ISOC and the IASA) can sign
>> contracts with whomever they want, they do NOT have the authority to
>> make that person the RSE.  That authority resides with the IAB, and 
>> the
>> primary responsibility for it is delegated to the RSOC, as an arm of 
>> the
>> IAB.
>>
>> the RSOC does not now, and has not ever, report to the IETF LLC, the
>> IASA, or the ISOC.  The RSOC has made its performance reviews 
>> available
>> to the IAD (and presumably will make them available to the eD).  
>> Because
>> to do otherwise wouldn't work.
>>
>> This whole house of cards we are building relies on cooperation 
>> between
>> the various entities.  To date, everyone has been very careful NOT to
>> rock that boat.  We want this to work.
>>
>> Please do not attempt to insert larger structural changes into these
>> document revisions.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 2/9/19 8:27 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>> The text that's in IETF process docs does not matter here.  I'm 
>>> talking
>>> about the raw legal facts.
>>>
>>> The RSE contract is an agreement between some legal entity and the 
>>> RSE..
>>> That entity has decision power over the contract, no matter what we 
>>> say
>>> on this mailing list or in an RFC.  That entity was ISOC; it is now 
>>> the
>>> LLC, since the contract has been reassigned.  In neither case does 
>>> the
>>> IAB have decision authority, nor did they ever.
>>>
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 8:10 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Richard, as far as I can tell you have this backwards.
>>>     The responsibility for the RFC Series, and for the RSE, rests 
>>> with the
>>>     IAB.
>>>     The IAB, as a practical matter, does not have the ability to 
>>> contract.
>>>     So the IAD was the person to handle the contract with the RSE.  
>>> And the
>>>     ISOC provided the money.
>>>
>>>     The only say Ray had in the RSE process was if there was a 
>>> problem and
>>>     the contract could not be agreed.
>>>
>>>     For the IASA2 working group to change the authority over the RSE 
>>> would
>>>     be a major structural change.  The ONLY reason we are revising 
>>> 6635 is
>>>     to update the references to the IASA.  Bob has been careful 
>>> about that.
>>>
>>>     Do NOT attempt to make this change under this rubric.
>>>
>>>     Yours,
>>>     Joel
>>>
>>>     On 2/9/19 7:23 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:59 PM Stephen Farrell
>>>      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >     On 09/02/2019 23:48, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>>      >      > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Russ Housley
>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >> Alissa:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> I think we want the hiring/firing of the RFC Series 
>>> Editor to
>>>      >     stay with
>>>      >      >> the IAB, but the funding to stay with IASA.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      > This is not a reasonable thing to ask.
>>>      >
>>>      >     I'm way behind in being up to speed on this wg's stuff, 
>>> so I
>>>      >     may be off base here, but I reckon I strongly agree with 
>>> Russ.
>>>      >     The IAB are picked by the community and ought be the ones 
>>> to
>>>      >     hire a new RSE if one is needed. With no disrespect meant 
>>> to
>>>      >     trades-persons, I'd be fine with the hiring of 
>>> electricians
>>>      >     being handled internal to IASA; but not an RSE - the 
>>> context
>>>      >     here means those are utterly different.
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > When the IAB wants to take legal responsibility for the RSE
>>>     contract,
>>>      > they can control it.  If they don't, then they can't.
>>>      >
>>>      > That doesn't mean they can't be extensively consulted, but 
>>> they
>>>     can't
>>>      > have ultimate authority over the contract, since they aren't 
>>> a party.
>>>      >
>>>      > --Richard
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >     Cheers,
>>>      >     S.
>>>      >
>>>      >     PS: I'd have said the above even were I not an incoming 
>>> IAB
>>>      >     member and hope not to be involved in picking a new RSE 
>>> whilst
>>>      >     on the IAB:-)
>>>      >
>>>      >      > One of the key driving factors for
>>>      >      > this whole endeavor it makes no legal sense for an
>>>     organization
>>>      >     to delegate
>>>      >      > its hiring / firing / contracting decisions to people
>>>     external to
>>>      >     that
>>>      >      > organization.
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      > By all means, the IASA should work with the IAB on the
>>>     RSE, but
>>>      >     since the
>>>      >      > IASA is ultimately the responsible party, it can't 
>>> totally
>>>     cede
>>>      >      > responsibility.  The "operational oversight" text 
>>> that's
>>>     in there
>>>      >     now seems
>>>      >      > like it captures this accurately.
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >> The decision whether the ED serves on the ROC should 
>>> not be
>>>      >     determined by
>>>      >      >> this document.  If the IAB wants the ED to be part of
>>>     RSOC, they
>>>      >     can make
>>>      >      >> that appointment..
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> Perhaps it would be best to make this change:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> OLD:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >>    The IASA is tasked with providing the funding for 
>>> and
>>>     operational
>>>      >      >>    oversight of the RFC Editor.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> NEW:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >>    The IASA is tasked with providing the funding for 
>>> the
>>>     RFC Editor.
>>>      >      >>    The IETF Executive Director is tasked with 
>>> overnight
>>>     of contracts
>>>      >      >>    and operational agreements related to the RFC 
>>> Editor.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      > I don't see how this accomplishes what you claim 
>>> above.
>>>     The IETF
>>>      >     ED is
>>>      >      > part of the IASA.  And especially given that, the 
>>> second
>>>     sentence
>>>      >     here is
>>>      >      > really just micromanagement of the LLC.
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      > --Richard
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> Russ
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:11 PM, Alissa Cooper
>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> Earlier this week the IAB discussed whether to
>>>      >      >> put draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-01 out for community
>>>     review. In
>>>      >     reviewing
>>>      >      >> it I felt there were some clarifications needed 
>>> before it
>>>     would
>>>      >     be ready
>>>      >      >> and the IAB thought the most appropriate path would 
>>> be to
>>>     bring
>>>      >     those to
>>>      >      >> the WG for resolution first.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> I haven’t started my AD review of 4071bis yet (hope 
>>> to next
>>>      >     week), but I
>>>      >      >> think 4071bis has a problem in that the definition of
>>>     “IASA” in that
>>>      >      >> document is broken (it refers to the definition in 
>>> 4071,
>>>     which
>>>      >     it itself is
>>>      >      >> obsoleting). And until it is clear how we are 
>>> defining
>>>     “IASA,” I
>>>      >     have
>>>      >      >> trouble with statements such as the following from
>>>     Section 3.3
>>>      >     in 4844bis:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> "The IASA is tasked with providing the funding for 
>>> and
>>>      >     operational oversight
>>>      >      >> of the RFC Editor.”
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> Is the RSOC part of IASA? It’s pretty hard to tell
>>>     without a good
>>>      >      >> definition of IASA, which we do not currently have 
>>> IMO.
>>>     (I think
>>>      >     there is a
>>>      >      >> further problem with the sentence above, which is 
>>> that the
>>>      >     funding comes
>>>      >      >> from the LLC, and it would be better to be that 
>>> specific.)
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> While looking at Section 3.3, I don’t think this 
>>> text belongs
>>>      >     there since
>>>      >      >> this document is about the RFC series and editor, not 
>>> IASA
>>>      >     generally:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> "The IETF LLC Board provides oversight of the IASA, 
>>> and
>>>     the IETF
>>>      >     Executive
>>>      >      >> Director is the chief actor for the IASA.”
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> I also find lack of clarity between 4844bis Section 3 
>>> and
>>>      >     6635bis Section
>>>      >      >> 3. For example, 4844bis says:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> "The IETF Executive Director works with the IAB to 
>>> identify
>>>      >     suitable persons
>>>      >      >> or entities to fulfill the mandate of the RFC 
>>> Editor.”
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> While 6635bis says:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> "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.”
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> But under the current model (which I presume we plan 
>>> to
>>>     keep),
>>>      >     the ED is a
>>>      >      >> member of the RSOC. So does the ED work directly with 
>>> the
>>>     IAB? Or
>>>      >      >> indirectly with the IAB through the RSOC? Or both?
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> 4844bis also says:
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> "The IETF Executive Director may define additional
>>>     operational
>>>      >      >> requirements and policies for management purposes to 
>>> meet the
>>>      >      >> requirements defined by the various communities.”
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> I wonder if this is really consistent with what is
>>>     envisioned in
>>>      >     6635bis.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> I also find it odd that the budget for an RSE search 
>>> is
>>>     discussed in
>>>      >      >> 6635bis, while the budget for the RFC Editor function
>>>     overall is
>>>      >     discussed
>>>      >      >> in 4844bis — is the separation meaningful? Since 
>>> the LLC
>>>     Board
>>>      >     approves the
>>>      >      >> whole IETF budget, presumably what 4844bis says about 
>>> the RFC
>>>      >     Editor budget
>>>      >      >> applies to the search budget mentioned in 6635bis as
>>>     well, but
>>>      >     since it’s
>>>      >      >> not explicit it isn’t totally clear.
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> Thanks,
>>>      >      >> Alissa
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >> _______________________________________________
>>>      >      >> iasa20 mailing list
>>>      >      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      >      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>      >      >>
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      >
>>>      >      > _______________________________________________
>>>      >      > iasa20 mailing list
>>>      >      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      >      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>      >      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > _______________________________________________
>>>      > iasa20 mailing list
>>>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>      >
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------