Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Editor liaison to the IAB? [was: Re: Comment on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11-Mar-22 13:00, Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> (with my RPC hat on)
> 
> On 3/10/22 2:57 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> This is indeed a good question. Thanks Rob for bring this up!
>>
>> I actually think there are two options here: either the IAB could have 
a liaison from the RPC or, if the RPC thinks this is not needed, we probably just don’t need a liaison in the new model.
> 
> [JM] The RPC doesn't feel that a liaison to the IAB is necessary;
> however, we hope the IAB will invite the RPC to participate in meetings
> as needed.

That makes sense to me and there is no text in any of the drafts that
suggests an RPC liaison. I'll reply to Jay's message on the more general
question.

     Brian

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
>> This seems like the only two option to me, given we definitely don’t need a liaison from the RSAB as the IAB is sending one of the representatives and I don’t think it practically makes sense to have liaison from the RSWG. Or maybe having the RSCE as a liaison to the IAB could be another option but I don’t think that would be of real interest for the new RSCE role…?
>>
>> It seems like this is actually something we might also want to update as well in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter. Brian? Lars?
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10. Mar 2022, at 21:13, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/10/22 3:41 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>>>> Changing the title to help ensure that this comment is tracked against draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.
>>>> Still suffering from Covid, and I'm now way behind on email, so perhaps this has already been resolved, but I think that the issue below needs to be resolved before the document is published.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rob
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: 07 March 2022 19:40
>>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-06: (with COMMENT)
>>>> Rob,
>>>> On 07-Mar-22 23:58, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>     
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>       Note that RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison
>>>>>       member to the IAB.  This does not change, but refers to the RFC
>>>>>       Editor function as described in [I-D.iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model].
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't entirely clear to me exactly who (as in which person or body) is
>>>>> actually responsible for appointing a liaison member to the IAB (given, as per
>>>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, the RFC editor function responsibilities are
>>>>> split up into multiple entities).  My assumption is that this would 
be RSAB,
>>>>> but perhaps I mistaken.  Would it be helpful to clarify this - perhaps in
>>>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model?
>>>> Indeed, I don't think it belongs in the IAB charter. Hence I suggest 
that this
>>>> is really a comment that the IAB Program (in Cc:) should look at.
>>> This is a good question.
>>>
>>> One key assumption underlying version 3 of the RFC Editor Model is that the process for policy definition and implementation is no longer under the purview of the IAB. Therefore, I question whether the IAB still needs a liaison from the RFC Editor Function (whose responsibilities are now 
spread across multiple entities) and I would defer to the IAB (cc'd) on whether they think this is needed. (If so, we'll need to figure out who does the appointing, but one step at a time.)
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>