[Rfced-future] Model proposal

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 15 July 2020 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43DB3A0AEC for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Bn5Gpn38utV2 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47F353A0F49 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B20E12920D for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: rfced-future@iab.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:12:57 -0700
Message-ID: <yblwo34ir4m.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/-L6nB6s12ZcfuJLv5dL7hv35Flk>
Subject: [Rfced-future] Model proposal
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:13:18 -0000

Eliot proposed this list:

> When discussing appeals chains, it is probably worth asking a few
> questions to be sure we have this right:
> 
> What can be appealed?
> What remedies are permitted in the appeal at what level?
> What are the interests in potential appellate bodies that might conflict?
> Would a potential appellate body agree to extend its remit to cover such service?
> Does the potential appellate body have the necessary authority to institute a remedy?

I'd argue there is an important one missing: what are the necessary
requirements/characteristics of the body to be appealed to?  I think
there is consensus that RSOC didn't work, and I think there is consensus
that the IAB isn't likely the right place.  However, to pick the right
place, shouldn't we define requirements for that body should consist of
"feature-wise" so we can make an accurate selection?

[I recognize that was a heavily engineering-approach paragraph]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI