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

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

With regard to draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter, note that this is
a proposed BCP so is subject to IETF consensus and IESG approval.
The IAB Chair informed me in late November that it had been discussed
(in its -05 draft) by the IAB.

The IAB minutes of 2021-11-17 state:
"During the Last Call, the IAB will make a statement that endorses the changes to the IAB charter in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter."

That still needs to happen, unless I missed a message.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 06-Mar-22 07:18, John C Klensin 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 ----------
>