Re: [Rfced-future] [IAB] Appeal: Apparent IAB approval/foregone conclusion of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Dear John,

Thanks for noting this issue. The text in the IABopen agenda was my best guesstimate what the state will be at the time of he IABopen meeting (e.g. also for some of the other draft where the -01 version are not even yet submitted). This was not mention to be an announcement but I understand that this can and probably did cause confusion. This was clearly not well communicated by me and I now updated the agenda respectively. Sorry for that.

The IAB is closely collaborating with the program chairs and draft editor. The IAB is currently reviewing the draft and by announcing the community feedback widely [1] and requesting additional reviews from various directorates, we believe we supported the process in order to widen community review as much as possible. This was also coordinated with the chairs and the program. 

The current status of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model is that the IAB received a note from the program chairs on Feb 2 that the document is ready to be processed by the IAB [2]. The IAB then started the community feedback period (as mentioned above) which ends today and the draft is scheduled for approval by the IAB on our call this Wednesday. We coordinated with Peter and the chairs to submit a new version in order to address all community feedback comments received so far. Any additional comments that are received before Wednesday will of course still be considered by the IAB, and I even believe that editorial comments can still be considered that are received at any point before final publication (especially given there is also the RPC editing process still upcoming).

Further, as also requested by the program chairs, draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter, draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026, and draft-rsalz-2028bis also went though a 4 weeks last call process initiated by the responsible AD during the same period. These documents are scheduled for approval by the IESG on this Thursday’s telechat agenda [3].

I hope this clarifies your points below. If you have out-standing concerns, please let me know and I will bring them up with the IAB for further discussion.

Mirja


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/T4C74AMabIfTSAjbWXSrWECBXXY/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/yqOgYNMa6zLZcU069YJ4YYPj_qc/

[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/



> On 5. Mar 2022, at 19:18, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> IAB,
> 
> The announcement of your agenda [1] was sent out within the two
> hours before I started writing this note.
> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt was posted well under 24
> hours ago.  Yet the agenda says, as a document update report:
> 	"Approved for publication:
> 	draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12"
> 	
> While I have every hope that some version of
> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model will be able to be approved by the
> IAB before the open meeting on March 24, a note from the Editor
> refers to a "next version" and a note from the Program co-chair
> suggests further review within the Program.  The latter is
> included below, with the announcement detailed elided, and
> includes a copy of the former.  
> 
> If the IAB knew in advance exactly when -12 would be posted,
> scheduled an emergency meeting immediately after that time, and
> reviewed and approved it, why was the Program (and especially
> the Editor and Co-chairs not informed of that so we could stop
> wasting our time on further reviews and improvements?  Of
> course, if the IAB did that review, or even a review of -11, and
> concluded that any additional issues could be sorted out at
> AUTH48, that would go directly to the importance of the recent
> Program discussion of what should or should not be allowed at
> AUTH48, at least without further community review.  The Program
> has apparently concluded that AUTH48 details or restrictions
> should be left for future work but, if the IAB intends to push
> new material in -12 and anything that might appear in any future
> I-D versions off to that process, it would probably justify
> reopening that discussion and perhaps focusing it more on
> non-IETF WG documents.
> 
> If, as I hope was the case, the inclusion of "-12" in the Agenda
> was just an editing error, and the IAB simply intended to report
> on the approval of some version of the I-D, it still seems to me
> inappropriate to announce approval of a document neither the IAB
> nor the community have had a chance to review, and, if it is not
> -12 even a chance to see, unless the IAB intends to accept
> whatever the Program produces without discussion, even
> discussion of key oversight issues about the process (see
> below).  The IAB is supposed to be responsible for the output of
> its Programs; I hope that responsibility is being taken
> seriously.
> 
> In addition: 
> 
> (i) draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter is connected with
> 	the "RFC Editor Model" document but obviously interacts
> 	with the IAB and its activities.  Does the IAB intend to
> 	tell the community how it expects to handle that
> 	document and would not at least an announcement to that
> 	effect be appropriate during the Open Meeting?  In
> 	particular, the Agenda indicates that the Program will
> 	be closed as soon is draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model is
> 	published.  Should any of the other documents now being
> 	discussed as part of the Program, that Charter revision
> 	included, not be finished and published with or before
> 	the RFC Editor Model, would they then be abandoned?  
> 	Some additional explanation be in order.  If all of 
>  that will be covered comprehensively in the (I assume 
>  forthcoming) IAB report and at the Plenary, and is not 
>  worth mentioning as part of the Open Meeting Agenda, 
>  why not	save a few more minutes and eliminate the 
>  Status Update from the Open Meeting agenda entirely?
> 	
> (ii) Watching the mailing list for the Program over the
> 	last (nearly two) years, doing a very quick review of
> 	the mail archive, and remembering the discussions that
> 	led to the Program's creation, suggests that this work
> 	-- which is more than a collection of administrative and
> 	procedural changes but might affect the entire community
> 	and the broader perceptions and future effectiveness of
> 	the IETF (and IAB and IRTF)-- has been reviewed and
> 	contributed to by a tiny fraction of that community (or
> 	even the number of people registered for IETF 113 as of
> 	the last report on registrations) despite the great
> 	commitment of the leadership and by several of those
> 	involved (demonstrated by their extensive postings).
> 	For IETF Working Groups and documents --on which the
> 	Program's work process was modeled-- one important
> 	function of the IESG review, even if it rarely mentioned
> 	explicitly, is to ensure that a standards track document
> 	has been reviewed widely enough by parties who might be
> 	affected.   Does the IAB intend to consider the
> 	implications of the relatively narrow participation in
> 	the WG and the fairly narrow range of perspectives the
> 	participants represent?  Will that analysis be presented
> 	to the community or does the IAB intend to simply
> 	approve and announce the Program's outputs without such
> 	consideration?  And if there is a presentation of the
> 	decision, will that done in a way that is broadly
> 	available, made part of the record, and, if necessary,
> 	subject to a further appeal?
> 
> 
> Actions requested by this appeal:
> 
> (1) Do not approve, or announce that you are going to approve,
> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model (or any version of it), or any
> other document under discussion in the Program, before the
> Program has concluded its work.
> 
> (2) If the IAB intends to approve whatever the Program produces
> without doing its own critical review of both the document(s)
> and the process, particularly the breadth of participation in
> forming the Program consensus, announce that to the community
> and put it on the agenda for discussion at the Plenary and/or
> the Open Meeting, making sure there is time for such a
> discussion.
> 
> (3) If the IAB believes that these issue deserve more open
> discussion with a potentially broader community than the Plenary
> and Open Meeting agenda would allow for, either schedule an
> additional meeting session during IETF or schedule an online
> open workshop to be held before approval.  If the latter, use
> the same kinds of broad outreach that
> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model contemplates for
> potentially-significant changes... noting that this is the most
> potentially-significant set of changes made to the RFC Editor
> Function since its beginnings (as described in RFC 8700).
> 
> Please note that none of the above requests changes in either
> the model document nor in the way the Program has operated.  I
> think it is appropriate that we be at least as careful with how
> the process is concluded and the documents approved as the
> community has been in its creation and progress so far.
> 
> thanks, 
>   john
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-iabopen-01
> 
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Saturday, March 5, 2022 13:41 +0100
> From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
> 
> Thank you Peter.
> 
> Please note that there are a good number of changes made.  I
> don't think these changes substantially change the consensus
> established within the group, but people should review them for
> themselves.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> On 05.03.22 04:09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi all, this version is my attempt to incorporate all feedback 
>> received during the IAB's community call for comments. If I
>> have  missed anything, please post to the [e-mail]
>> list and I  will make the appropriate fixes in the next
>> version.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:05:19 -0800
>> From: [e-mail]
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Peter Saint-Andre and
>> posted to the IETF repository.
>> 
>> Name:        draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
>> Revision:    12
>> Title:        RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>> Document date:    2022-03-05
>> Group:        iab
>> Pages:        32
> 
> [...]
> 
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
> 
> 
> From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
> Date: 5. March 2022 at 13:41:20 CET
> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> Thank you Peter.
> 
> Please note that there are a good number of changes made.  I don't think these changes substantially change the consensus established within the group, but people should review them for themselves.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> On 05.03.22 04:09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi all, this version is my attempt to incorporate all feedback received during the IAB's community call for comments. If I have missed anything, please post to the [e-mail] list and I will make the appropriate fixes in the next version.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:05:19 -0800
>> From: [e-mail]
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Peter Saint-Andre and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> 
>> Name:        draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
>> Revision:    12
>> Title:        RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>> Document date:    2022-03-05
>> Group:        iab
>> Pages:        32
>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model/
>> Html: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.html
>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    This document specifies version 3 of the RFC Editor Model.  The Model
>>    defines two high-level tasks related to the RFC Series.  First,
>>    policy definition is the joint responsibility of the RFC Series
>>    Working Group (RSWG), which produces policy proposals, and the RFC
>>    Series Approval Board (RSAB), which approves such proposals. Second,
>>    policy implementation is primarily the responsibility of the RFC
>>    Production Center (RPC) as contractually overseen by the IETF
>>    Administration Limited Liability Company (IETF LLC).  In addition,
>>    various responsibilities of the "RFC Editor Function" are now
>>    performed alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series
>>    Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC.  Finally, this document
>>    establishes the Editorial Stream for publication of future policy
>>    definition documents produced through the processes defined herein.
>> 
>>    This document obsoletes RFC 8728.  This document updates RFC 7841,
>>    RFC 8729, and RFC 8730.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 
>