Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 05:52 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 ABEC93A0D3E for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) 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 1kGa_PwuDLtg for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847873A0D41 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id w17so5029048ply.11 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBZcXAoiD01f2D+qWzSP/pHxJcCTb9NaIDiduFSshNU=; b=XLmotqXB3ji3QUr47813m4E8Ndd2ijLepciVQt5SoaNxWvv9tgZjvG6hU7WZG3c7Aa mGd+7FuyZo2gna5505Cgy/Nv8j1KG+jghvYI0dVXQxskdvsIQCIcJPodpx575CqBAYXI 5dH5ZOZlvlfQb/+r64uwFNMwyba8X/GwWTldpw7+oDnNj2gfbdAaEoF7c9M05+wrmDT3 0jHq1f71agoNDQNteyLnNmTlLbCTd2/NQG8C5ozwaDGmqae2yQlbKetY8D0Z+tVRpeeg ls0CSkrRVgnAXw73tsSvMQW298BXCycSt6QbI1g5ClHzOp+dAbG++1zN4iy2tQhV+oRr Mi/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBZcXAoiD01f2D+qWzSP/pHxJcCTb9NaIDiduFSshNU=; b=UolBx5O2adhmV3L2//8eLCgNasusnfKMEC+Q4CXm6GZG7Fhkf4meqRYz4xAk9pFDCx 149/AjF0FcAxf3KkHXlAlSMt2OQ1VxP3Gvb2SjTGf1EDtkHnE3igceetNTIncnaFZ/da XkPVG1FLTJEwtd7qDYsRs7HnJrF0mrN99t/XvVKjWksF87eakoKvChr1obuEPJs1KPkJ 5auPpL+aBoGRc5+a2xzHmP+L/r0Z4tqRNvEWas5O7K93G23azGsJKTbAvS2/SX1fYYuc eWEoAjZBQ04p9gyEPax2ecefk6V4Fjt66dk9pDVVVqfNNwBNQZ7Ji/quIqS45yKxDWJ7 LhjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ppm+zWm8tE1QG/WBnOVrtNDRjvz5aFwpVMr+ycLv7HUSp4qZ1 h4vbevrUqq0bsYfB5sC+VsDhcxr9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylZTE5cUNQxPmHTVlb4vSfIxpskW722AoeeSBxnARgytJmu4QHOshPKXntcuiGf2FPGggmjw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8a8b:: with SMTP id x11mr18967420pjn.127.1594619532568; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm13118221pfg.76.2020.07.12.22.52.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, rfced-future@iab.org
References: <d4d1cd2d-6df2-4cb4-b63a-f9bba45b48c0@www.fastmail.com> <51b72823-f2a2-29bd-bd88-f63e13522387@gmail.com> <d1f33279-0656-4caa-81e7-aa665d3a4acb@www.fastmail.com> <098fb5bf-f65c-d741-5fa7-baa6ae2c8358@nostrum.com> <F30FBA82-510C-4DC1-8535-FFA30345CEA7@kuehlewind.net> <DE2B2759-03FF-4D2C-B765-3C7C9AFA0955@vigilsec.com> <2A7C36D3-62CD-4BA0-88BE-F19A06D991DB@sobco.com> <48E30FDD-24B1-4602-9740-BB4DA2A4A7C1@sobco.com> <9A6E6D1C-FD14-4285-92A2-2483D9452CE9@vigilsec.com> <14ef71ed-8f2f-22f4-edf0-ca22b004ec7c@gmail.com> <9d390288-1056-4997-a540-96510e19a099@www.fastmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3bb43b97-211b-cee3-c365-906192c4b337@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:52:08 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9d390288-1056-4997-a540-96510e19a099@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/3_WyI9eVb-k7pyUCvB99A79o2qw>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 05:52:15 -0000
On 13-Jul-20 11:16, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020, at 06:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> The overall point remains, does RFC 2026 apply here? If not, the the only appeal body would seem to be the IAB. >> >> It will be what we define it to be at the end of this discussion. > > Yes. > > FWIW, Russ' characterization missed program leads. But talking to chairs and any AD/lead, while codified in 2026, happens before the truly formal part of the process. It's an important piece for a couple of reasons, so I will amend the proposal to recognize that. > > The structure of the appeals chain is informal (chair, AD), formal (IESG), in event of process failure (IAB), in event of the process itself being wrong (ISOC Board). The structure I proposed covered the formal piece, but neglected the informal piece and did not provide safeguards for the process pieces, mostly because I hadn't thought the whole thing through. > > I stand by the formal piece. My logic is that we should not create a new body for this process. Of the bodies we have, the IAB is most suitable. Yes. The alternative is a new body. As I've said repeatedly since about 1995, I'd like to see the IAB freed up to do nothing but things related to Architecture. I count IANA and liaisons as part of that, but not running a publishing service. > I haven't any firm stance on what to do about a process backstop for the IAB. > >> I'd certainly be inclined to put the ISOC Board at the end of any >> appeal chain, but it's a new thing, not part of the IETF standards >> process. > > I'd be reluctant to ask the ISOC Board to participate in this process any more than they would in the IETF. Keeping their involvement to arbitration of disputes over the process itself seems appropriate. I completely agree. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the ISOC Board has a strong interest in the success of the RFC series. Brian
- [Rfced-future] Model proposal Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Adam Roach
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Larry Masinter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Russ Housley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Russ Housley
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Martin Thomson
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Nico Williams
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal Brian E Carpenter