Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor model
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 09:00 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3351201D7 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=xBAPNk3F; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=UTzP1GOk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xz2KyX0OJ4Ec for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3D64120186 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DA1B81C9E; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE06DB81C9E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=xBAPNk3F; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=UTzP1GOk
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mge-sBqXsGsf for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE5BB81C9D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.172.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x638xt3S016680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1562144407; x=1562230807; bh=ksDT/lqjeC0Z2GwW800N0BfeGxzzClgfO9EO4KXO1PU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=xBAPNk3Fg88VJZkN1tcMERrVqM3i7/JcHbvQvv7+q9VROFjICyRHxZI9IQ59jrW/z GElbX6aDGiIQ5BLRl0A8J0c5SG/lnLZwND+CuIrvaVHvHzVRusU4OR3ZLO4PRT5un6 ldn9E9HZcY5xmtIj7kNs8fFCELJ87RmlCSKu/6Hg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1562144407; x=1562230807; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ksDT/lqjeC0Z2GwW800N0BfeGxzzClgfO9EO4KXO1PU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=UTzP1GOkTE4sqpEjh5kC2dttNp0wTnYScNOP41dBGGFINbjrqeD/RvSYbycPbpHaW TkTibrGU2Yfh8gqPkpKPLv8cRk+TCzofr5JFR4WFvB0iHqErv1K/jxiBMieUmYnDok I3azV+hiGGTIC2xXwd0TWu3STE9KYfEqZLK0cK2Q=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190703010225.0c939058@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 01:59:08 -0700
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <79A7A831-C4AE-4E11-A8C6-DB7B2210BA9C@huitema.net>
References: <CA+9kkMAUHUdCY1UQPy=f-c6+g8Nhmq7dbrdD6wEWSJMB7Yas0A@mail.gmail.com> <ed41d902-77f8-15ab-b112-89e8594b47d6@cs.tcd.ie> <6518.1561472282@localhost> <9881d202-8b2e-6e09-c032-fb94a770eedd@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMCpinOZQsFdq2RV0sGWU4dD+XTTtS3-EZoRK-h4a9-=aA@mail.gmail.com> <79A7A831-C4AE-4E11-A8C6-DB7B2210BA9C@huitema.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor model
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
Hi Christian, I moved the thread to the rfc-interest mailing list as that used to be the venue for discussions about the RFC Series. At 09:15 AM 25-06-2019, Christian Huitema wrote: >The other source of stress is the independent series. I do believe >and so many times that this streams provides useful checks and >balance against the IESG. It is clearly a source of tension, but >that tension should be assumed and managed. Over the last decade there has been attempts to remove the Independent Stream from the RFC Series. The odd part about that is when the person(s) arguing in favor of the removal asks for the publication of his/her document in that Stream. There is a RFC which defines the procedures for handling conflict reviews. The tension (if I can call it that) occurs when an IETF Area Director exercises his/her prerogatives to have a document processed in the IETF Stream instead of the Independent Stream. >The question then is, what is left for the RSE. The RFC Editor >report is all about the RPC work. What would it contain if the RSE >did not formally manage the RPC? Would the bulk of the RSE work >evaporate? I think not. It is useful to provide a report about operations as part of monitoring whether things are working correctly. There is also the longer term perspective. In general, there isn't much interest in that. >We are also handling code snippets and abstract language >specifications by including them in our specs. Do this code objects >require the same management as specification texts? What about bug fixes? That usually comes from one of the Streams. Did anyone ask the Stream's manager about that? >We inherited a structure in which RFC are immutable. This leads to >the errata process and long cycles of updates by WG processes. Is >that the best we can do? The errata process and the updates in the above is related to standardization instead of "archival record". >We hold the RFC series in great veneration, but we cannot answer >simple questions like who reads it, what is their impact. How can we >manage change without data about our results? The above is probably about dissemination. >I would like to see the RSE focus on such questions. And I think >removing the RPC management and the ISE tension from the role would help that. A RSE could write a RFC to address such questions. I suggest considering whether that will produce the desired outcome. Regards, S. Moonesamy _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor model S Moonesamy