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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

Again, I think you're missing the difference between electricians
and an RSE. Continuing to confuse the importance/relevance of those
roles doesn't make them any less different.

I also think Joel is correct that over-reaching the documentation
tweaks being done in this WG would really not be a good plan.

On 10/02/2019 00:23, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 
> When the IAB wants to take legal responsibility for the RSE contract, they
> can control it.  If they don't, then they can't.

Disagree. One take-way from the RFCplusplus BoF could be that even
if the IAB think they control the RFC series, the community wins when
the community tells the IAB they've been inhaling the wrong fumes.
So, real control and what you term "legal responsibility" are just
not the same things.

> 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.

I'd object to any process-RFC update that made this kind of change
which I don't believe is in-charter for this WG. I suspect I'd not be
alone. (And having said that, I guess I'll now have to read all the
drafts, sheesh:-)

Cheers,
S.