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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, March 17, 2022 15:52 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> I trimmed the Cc.
> 
> At 09:12 AM 14-03-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So, now we are creating an RSWG that is sort of like an IETF
>> WG except where it isn't and an RSAB that is sort of like --
>> well, I don't know what it is sort of like unless it is
>> IAB-lite.  We are eliminating a key (even if sometimes
>> problematic) role and oversight authority in the RSE -- a
>> role that was based in technical publications knowledge and
>> experience -- replacing part of it with committees, the
>> majority of whose participants are unlikely to have that
>> knowledge and experience, an advisory function whose
>> parameters will have to be sorted out over time, and giving
>> vastly more authority to the LLC and its leadership. Every
>> one of those changes may be desirable and reflect the need to
>> solve real problems but, because of the extent of the changes
>> and the degree to which we are going into territory we think
>> we understand (but may not), it is an experiment and the
>> other old IETF metaphor is a question: "what could possibly
>> go wrong?".

> The current (soon to be obsoleted) model was described as
> "running code".  The proposal which came out of this Internet
> Architecture Board program is a mishmash of ideas borrowed
> from the IETF model.  The authority given to the IETF
> Administration LLC is a side effect of a previous decision
> taken by the IETF.

> If the proposal is an experiment, shouldn't it be categorized
> as "experimental" instead of "informational"?


SM,

I had promised myself I wasn't going to say more about this
on-list and the postings from Martin, Eliot, and Carsten (I
think in that order) covered several perspectives on the issue.
But I want to respond specifically (and I hope narrowly and
briefly) to your question:  Normally, when we write an
experimental spec, there is a fallback plan if the experiment
fails or has undesirable side effects. Usually that involves
reverting to the status quo ante.  Here, the status quo was
dead: one could have imagined the Program coming up with a model
that more closely resembled the old system than the new model
does, but it would not have been much closer to long-established
"running code" than the new model.  While this is an
"experiment" in the sense that many of the ideas in the model
are untested, I don't see that there would be any value in
labeling the document as "Experimental" other than to create
confusion.  There is no status quo to which to return: the only
path is ahead and we just need to hope that it turns out to be
forward and work.   If it does not, we have to hope that Martin
is correct and the new arrangements and a good dose of goodwill
will be sufficient to make any needed changes and adjustments).

   john



> 
> If the proposal is an experiment, shouldn't it be categorized
> as "experimental" instead of "informational"?