[rfc-i] Follow up on RFC Editor evolution

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 22:22 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 80202120005 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 dxNBpP5spfzx for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:24 -0800 (PST)
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 150BC120019 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBC0F4071A; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:13 -0800 (PST)
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 DDAD8F4071A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XXhUNnXJvPfX for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8EFF40719 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id n1so251305ilm.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qHZ7Z5LTVM8kf8Q0jIarSGu4ccoQcifOFidfuO3VrLw=; b=ur3LPYiSZZwDpiEgshouhgCMy9GeJhTuwA17ndjghDWPikhubeMm7dV1c02+9oCX0a V7FJtgn9BI++w1ataxXBgWs28OTmsQa/8/1Blpj4v4yRrQPvQ7kKmOurdf1zBncWYYmv mrrQnmBv3vDGAWQ6NSbE8DdYi0Ia5nlU/QqSIStJheDMp+gMRJnufPDZT8bZW4yvEZh5 6Cq8zudVuV4gibQ6PZsv9/YjkFrvJ0LnsIgdzCC7SfBUXNJD1gReYSWTdrb4I73q3WTW 12tYTbxEzbwHt940LFzZelY989O7SOC3NwpqUsNd84udJik1AhUAA6ZSqpJha9Ojylqb fnAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qHZ7Z5LTVM8kf8Q0jIarSGu4ccoQcifOFidfuO3VrLw=; b=KLMXlIR4wicuWw5Vm2HzMDWJX0SBmHfykGTTzwxpnzsHb/cmaSKb7S6U1iEiY/wRgW wLYfGA3LP7godIEhP2MUvSQv9KICZJjNO8DbbC70PSVHkkgBmJIBjpKwVaDBghW1U/J2 PrWFcPMdS27ID8ZSTUqHGtBu7/rPohZ5x8HaNJSToVbEr6gCxf8nQGTQsA+86m1bHS6t BprH9N1Pc8aD2H2o6a0JSB9PxYC/XCGopjRLeUECZTUEshiyC+AkzwDDCdseo/BMlono 1HtOXTiUBmUhSjVmmfS8NTtIK2T37nEpcavhPMdAWRpRhHytOJRS7Hwj7MwoJgMHQYu7 BBIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWf55xBJqQ24/tg6SocB5FtJ+NWb2O+lqEpvBlRml1feBevrEBy xe/dIdjBeJVeyda1wC+42U9oOSG0XBmDlTqAlp17Bt0+4B4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyGx9aKl8n0jr7NMeoiiE1Iiwje57Upu/7nEKua+Q2t+EbHu7lw4ATXooBQGT0Tr+lqFqX8Wj2chPP18I48dD0=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:de41:: with SMTP id e1mr5698041ilr.139.1576102940438; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:22:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:21:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBUDwHgjNtfff=_c8qJOBs4PyWniVZHr0CYe7ceEErhmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [rfc-i] Follow up on RFC Editor evolution
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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0666239840304940788=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

In a series of meetings leading up to and at IETF 106, the Internet
technical community was asked about the process to use in considering a
further evolution of the RFC Editor model.  The apparent consensus of those
interactions, as judged by the current RFC Series Editor, was that an open
IAB program is the most appropriate vehicle available.  The outcomes of
each of these meetings and the resulting process proposal is summarized in
draft-flanagan-rseme, but one key point is:

   The program should be modeled closely on an IETF working group
   [BCP25], using a mailing list to validate consensus among the
   participants, and adhering to the IETF Note Well [BCP78] [BCP79].
   Decisions are expected to be made using rough consensus; consensus
   will be called by the chairs, and any appeals will be handled by the
   IAB.[RFC7282].

Like an IETF working group, this program will have completely open
participation.

At its most recent meeting, which was the first after IETF 106, the IAB
agreed to develop a program in line with this proposal.  Charter text for
community review will be circulated to the rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
mailing list within the next few weeks; we encourage you to subscribe to
that list if you wish to participate in the charter discussion.  We expect
the comment period to span the holiday period into the new year.

A separate mailing list will be created for the program once the charter
has been finalized.  Volunteers to serve as chairs will also be solicited
after the charter is final.

If you have questions on the process going forward, please do not hesitate
to send them to iab@iab.org.

best regards,

Ted Hardie
for the IAB
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest