Re: [Rfced-future] One additional entity for our model to consider

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 26/09/2021, at 12:35 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> While I find some of his elaboration misleading, I think Adam is basically correct.
> 
> The RSAG was defined by various documents.  It continues to exist informally.  The relationships under which it exists will not be in place once this change is made.  I think it is worth noting in this document that the RSAG as described will no longer exist.
> 
> If the RPC wants advice, that would be a matter between teh RPC and its contracting authority.  I can't imagine the RSAB wanting an advisory body, and that would seem to be in conflict with the structure we are creating.

Yes.  It seems to me, perhaps naively, that a continuing RSAG, even an informal one, would conflict with the new structure.  If someone has an example/reason why a question might go to an RSAG instead of the RSWG, given that all such a question can do is elicit the advice of individuals, then I would like to hear it.

Jay


>  So, goodbye RSAG, and thanks for all the assistance.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 9/24/2021 11:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Adam,
>> That's a loose end indeed. However, in a sense the RSAG already doesn't
>> exist. As https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/rsag/ says:
>> "RFC 6635 ended its formal responsibilities in 2012, but the RSAG
>> continues as an informal group."
>> I'm not sure whether we need to say anything more. It's not been very
>> active recently. The most recent traffic was a short thread in October 2020,
>> before that a short thread in August 2020, and the busiest month in 2020
>> was February, with a longish thread planning our lunch at IETF 107, and
>> then discussing its abrupt cancellation.
>> Certainly there have been some cases where the Production Center has
>> consulted the RSAG with a thorny question. An example, duly obfuscated:
>> "The main issue is figuring out whether RFC XXXX <draft-ietf-XXXX-NN.txt>
>> should be added to an existing BCP and, if so, which one.  Please see the
>> thread below, as it details the issue and indicates the options we’ve
>> discussed and any associated concerns."
>> That's a test case for us. In the new model, should that be directed to
>> a) the RSCE
>> b) the RSAB
>> c) the RSWG
>> d) none of the above?
>> If the answer is d), we still need the RSAG. But it doesn't necessarily
>> need to be defined in any document; the Production Center and the RSCE
>> could just decide to retain it.
>> (BTW, I just spent a few minutes sampling the RSAG list archives, back to
>> July 2009 when the list was created. There's very little in there that
>> would be problematic in a public discussion. I don't mean that we could
>> open the archive without further ado, but I see no reason to believe
>> that having RSAG-type issues discussed on a publicly-readable list
>> would be a problem.)
>> Regards
>>    Brian Carpenter
>> On 25-Sep-21 13:14, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> I've been mostly following the shape of things in this working group via
>>> the mailing list (many thanks to the chairs for keeping the conversation
>>> so thoroughly organized that this is possible), and finally took the
>>> time to read draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-03 in its entirety. I really
>>> like the way the appendices both describe and rationalize the changes
>>> from existing practice.
>>> 
>>> There's one item that is conspicuous by its absence from the appendices
>>> and from the conversation so far [1]. RFC 5620 section 4.1 created and
>>> defined an RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). With the publication of RFC
>>> 6635, the formal constitution of that group (at least as it existed
>>> under the IAB aegis) became obsolete; however, the group continued on in
>>> a quasi-formal capacity [2] as a group of trusted advisors to the RSE.
>>> 
>>> In reviewing the description of the RSAG at
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/rsag/>, and comparing it to the
>>> responsibilities in draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-03 section 3.1.1, the
>>> purpose of *today's* RSAG appears to be a proper subset of the RSWG
>>> purpose. There are some key differences, however, between the RSWG and
>>> RSAG in terms of who can access mailing list archives, who can view
>>> minutes, who can participate, and who can observe activities. Along all
>>> four of those dimensions, I think the RSWG more closely reflects modern
>>> thinking about how our community believes governance ought to work.
>>> 
>>> There are also mechanical aspects of how today's RSAG is described that
>>> don't seem to connect to the emerging model coherently: for example, the
>>> sample of the topics it is currently described as providing guidance for
>>> would clearly require approval by the RSAB in our new model, meaning
>>> they would need to originate from -- or at the very least pass through
>>> -- the RSWG.
>>> 
>>> Given the foregoing, and given the new structure emerging from this
>>> current endeavor, I believe that it is time to formally deprecate the
>>> RSAG, and that draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model (as the document that
>>> defines the RSWG) is the document that should do so.
>>> 
>>> I want to be clear that the role of informal or semi-formal consulting
>>> advisors to the RPC is of value, and that it is probably worthwhile to
>>> include some description of these relationships in the document we're
>>> developing (which means that we should probably have a discussion in
>>> this group of what those relationships look like). I have no doubt that
>>> RSAG provided value to the process under the old structure, and we
>>> should seek to ensure that similar value exists in the next version of
>>> the RFC Editor model.
>>> 
>>> /a
>>> 
>>> ____
>>> [1] There is the minor exception of Nevil's document
>>> <draft-brownlee-rfc-series-and-rse-changes>, which mentioned the RSAG in
>>> passing, but which was unclear regarding any proposed disposition for it
>>> at the end of this process. There are also a number of recent emails
>>> that use the "RSAG" acronym to refer to what I surmise is the RSAB in
>>> the emerging model, although it is entirely possible that I am simply
>>> misunderstanding those emails.
>>> 
>>> [2] In addition to the presence of the RSAG's purpose and formal
>>> membership list on the RFC Editor page, there are a number of aspects of
>>> the RSAG that make it difficult to describe as "informal." Two examples:
>>> prior to the recent sequence of online-only meetings, the RSAG formally
>>> met in private, IETF-provided meeting rooms on Tuesdays of every IETF
>>> meeting week; and the RSAG continue to maintain and presumably use a
>>> private mailing list described at
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsag>.
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]