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

With regard to the RSE search budget reference, my understanding of the 
reasoning when I wrote that is that the IAB and RSOC perform the search. 
  The RFC Editor function does not perform the search.  Therefore the 
search should not come from the RFC Editor function budget.

As for the ED being a member of the RSOC, as far as I know the ED (and 
before that the IAD) was a liaison to the RSOC, not a member.  It does 
help keep communication clear that the ED knows what the RSOC is 
recommending to the IAB, and why.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/8/19 8:11 PM, Alissa Cooper 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> 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
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> 