Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Model discussions

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 30 August 2019 18:58 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 4BB7B1200E7 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.489 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=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body 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 eoUph7BBSJeS for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:58:01 -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 3C5F71200F6 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F31B8108A; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:43 -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 EC79AB8108A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
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 HAHt4YFxgBBe for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04F3FB81089 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id z17so7848950otk.13 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r2p8jNn90GOvNq4BGz5Y1V9f3P2QnpDJcE2Haf62XI0=; b=f4KDmPqiK32q+bhpi1U4VQzq6kFdD5tCvQHD+yKeYAwzGghv6VRUr82gzKlhgeHk2H 2gdZVAkgWwQjCAoDvm5JwyEILkuaR2ZctHl5Yl48kIY0J7RuPuEWGMQX33f4+lstgEIw 7dX1Cmkrgr8ohcrJUHr5yDX0LC8DtqYXQUpQSRpqalMRKF+pJ/ex71IxEYrvh/tF98oh f5X9sz9oSnNXRSrQ47AeTaGhTl1D9bqB6fhAlHRUwolY4+shBcdtuYDH3sPO5U/L4HbM rj4Tenj3JbC1ArzwHo/j011tH5qBaWi7t6YYKG1Iwt1GJHSP0j02XXiEgRyI8pwrvOuZ Q8KQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r2p8jNn90GOvNq4BGz5Y1V9f3P2QnpDJcE2Haf62XI0=; b=RvuVnlNEHgAr9c0k7X9NGTduP4la1pumGJt0KRuZFHJdinwJDg4dGYzJryrANQhbTh uJSih0qOd/usAX31I0fM1kBHnLWSuhcbst+Ua3CTbdkTd94406vrLPcXQTFQ6YLZ92YU iHZrbQKjdDKw/oUzyqcnhKZaZX6FhqzYyoAUg7eszKJgcQE3N90ROZBcTEsu3sidqAmm E1Cw2PkNkI1beQSkueVcOjL6jRiQ+MdkMybnTfA7ikGVdIwlvtCC9AluA1IozYnMY8b2 SgD4RwVjGkGRH2sLKnJMBx7cSLOSkuPjCkHe1Ga/Y4tow9/2F07xMx0LbcUTOEIIv9ZS cMEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAViYIFdp3vUdH0BkTFpCNXo4GtUXakEyVatLPLXBfyw/CK+B8yR 1jbX5NT2FsAbIe0TgDV+1ZLOaV++kjvz6yhhBLgtqwkR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx0gbwox78dK0r8kXXPgUTX1BHg+J4sksBAL2LNgyI7j+RAGdAeYEMc2DNjzuR76FWe9W/4qDMcoLw0GI8zSpA=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:518d:: with SMTP id y13mr2360519otg.114.1567191476294; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <03a8746b-27dc-bcbe-4131-ef5012966dc3@iab.org> <F32CDBC4-A163-4E78-9612-28B80434ABB9@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <F32CDBC4-A163-4E78-9612-28B80434ABB9@vigilsec.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:57:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH410tJ75k8o-UzmvV92JTmibXaU4O_6EbVq2FD58tj3HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Model discussions
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>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7488007894811600364=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> I think that the stream managers needs to be the core team for this
> effort.  That allows each of the sources of RFCs to have a voice.  In
> addition, an at-large member could be chosen to act as secretary.
>

I agree.  Stream managers need to have equal voices so that we have a more
of a full picture when decisions are made.

Kathleen

>
> Russ
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:41 PM, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you will have seen from the RSOC's message to the community, the RSOC
> is seeking input on an SOW for a temporary RFC Project Manager focused on
> the tactical aspects of the RSE position, in order to allow for a community
> process considering changes to the RFC Editor Model to complete.
>
> If the community supports moving forward with that approach, a key
> question becomes how to ensure that the evolution process completes
> successfully and in a timely fashion.  There are several choices of how to
> proceed, each of which has differences in who convenes the process, who
> manages it, and who calls consensus. Among the choices would be an open
> membership IAB program, an IETF GEN area working group, or a group convened
> from within the RFC Editor system itself (e.g. by the stream managers).
>
> In order to ensure that we have feedback on the structure of the community
> process, Heather will convene three interim meetings prior to IETF 106,
> each intended to allow those from different time zones to participate.  The
> tentative plan is for a September 13th meeting to be targeted at
> Americas-friendly time zones, for a September 30th meeting to be targeted
> at European and African time zones, and for a meeting over the October
> 17th/October 18th date to be targeted at Pacific and Asian time zones.
> Exact times and logistical details will be provided as soon as possible.
>
> After these initial meetings, there will be a meeting held at IETF 106 to
> discuss a proposal for the structure of the community process.  That
> meeting will again be convened by Heather, possibly with a co-chair. List
> confirmation or further discussion of any tentative conclusions will take
> place on the rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org mailing list.
>
> These steps to establish community consensus for a specific process are
> somewhat unusual, and the IAB recognizes that adding them may slow the
> overall process.  We believe, however, that they are needed given the
> community concerns raised to date. We also hope that clear community
> consensus for the process used will arise, and that this will help ensure
> that the eventual results of the process are acceptable to the community as
> a whole.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
> for the IAB
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest