Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Model discussions

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 01 September 2019 10:28 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 2B7A0120116 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=MOmx6NkJ; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=keGo2wb2
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 fDc7b5UMXDLG for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:43 -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 70A42120121 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7815FB813AA; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:24 -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 D23E2B813AA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:23 -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=MOmx6NkJ; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=keGo2wb2
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 XWEHy5g8s14i for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:21 -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 A7462B813A8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.207.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x81ASPKt012175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Sep 2019 03:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1567333718; x=1567420118; bh=SZDAcCPtt3j9t+hCAHjFhfzSJAEFwZp+6iqTJzmP4BA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MOmx6NkJ0iwy84yN/j6khudKO+nqYI1B2IJ7hi6lnMsWoX2meuPeyEp1Up0/lBZRW SOVRciv9r9teSKYLMrcBzA1HyjojjTrCPBKL5HR3PpNYEG2/YwOEXS/ZIoS6MdJUhe 3uMX4WCMYxvaNxsloyWu6/DzWyxjhhqSpj57DzT0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1567333718; x=1567420118; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SZDAcCPtt3j9t+hCAHjFhfzSJAEFwZp+6iqTJzmP4BA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=keGo2wb2hZoICxHnfNIfESt8fKBVqAPwgrp/p5PVaEfrQoU4x/PBO82sC5C5GhrZK /f77NOEKCnbthAQjGfKhhUhNw2axrzfXjI/jMmWqlArPWOXXsxGBqPp30rHFfUleCh uKTe/Sah20HSx0ElYKxjDG31Rhafe/5Zr0Pb+xtU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190901021622.0f760848@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2019 03:25:03 -0700
To: iab@iab.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <03a8746b-27dc-bcbe-4131-ef5012966dc3@iab.org>
References: <03a8746b-27dc-bcbe-4131-ef5012966dc3@iab.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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>
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>

Dear Internet Architecture Board,

I am copying my reply to one mailing list as per your request.

At 09:41 AM 30-08-2019, IAB Chair wrote:
>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.

Many years ago, or more precisely in January 2011, there was a 
discussion about the RSE role.  One of the points was about 
cross-stream coordination.  Another point in that discussion was 
about having a person with editor/publisher experience.  That point 
either got lost or diluted during the discussions which led to 
Version 2 of the RFC Editor Model.

>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).

I could not find any public information about the stream managers.  I 
came across the following sentence in RFC 2850: "The IAB must approve 
the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the 
general policy followed by the RFC Editor".  In RFC 6635, the RFC 
6635, the RFC Editor is described as a function instead of an 
organization.  In the paragraph quoted above, the RFC Editor is 
described as a "system".  That creates more ambiguity.

I am not in favour of an IETF-led process, e.g. an IETF General Area 
working group, as it is not in line with Section 2.1.2.1.2 of RFC 6635.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

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