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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Pardon me for being parochial, but while 4844 is open there are some small nits about the ISE I'd like to fix. 

4844 pre-dates 6548 so the text it includes about the Independent Stream is kind of wrong. While I understand that the purpose of re-opening 4844 is to handle the IASA2 side of things, I don't know that we should publish the bis as currently formed. 

5.1.4 is not aligned with 6548. I think the best way to fix this with minimal pain is to add two further bullets so:
OLD
   o  Procedures for Rights Handling in the RFC Independent Submission
       Stream [RFC5744],

   o  Independent Submission Editor Model [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6548bis],

   o  Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846],

   o  The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures [RFC3932].
NEW
   o  Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor [RFC4846],

   o  The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures [RFC3932].
END

5.2.4 should, at least include a simple reference to 6548 and probably 4846. This could be: "Procedures and processes for the Independent Stream are described in [RFC4846] and [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc6548bis]."

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: iasa20 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: 09 February 2019 23:59
To: Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>sx>; Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; IASA 2 WG <[e-mail]>rg>; Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Comments on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4844-bis-01



On 09/02/2019 23:48, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Russ Housley <[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.

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]> 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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>