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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-02-10 15:34, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 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.

It would be a really, really bad plan. The LLC is the IETF's servant,
not its master (just as the IAD was, despite being an ISOC employee).

Since the IETF+IAB have decided that the IAB must approve the
appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general
policy followed by the RFC Editor [BCP 39], and the LLC exists to
do the IETF's bidding, it's unambiguously the case that the LLC will
contract with whoever the IAB tells it to. Of course the LLC will be
the employer or client of record, but the orders come from the IAB.

The draft says this correctly and IMHO shouldn't be changed:

   It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of the
   RFC Editor and to approve the general policy followed by the RFC
   Editor.

It also has the money part right:

   The IETF Administration LLC Board approves a budget for operation of
   the RFC Editor activity, and the IETF Executive Director establishes
   and manages the necessary operational agreements for the RFC Editor
   activity.

I think it would be quite confusing to move this to another document.

    Brian

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