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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/03/2022, at 11:22 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 11-Mar-22 11:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/10/22 2:32 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 11/03/2022, at 10:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 11-Mar-22 09:57, 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. 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?
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, no. The IAB asks for a liaison *from* the RFC Editor function,
>>> 
>>> Asking the function for a liaison made sense when there was a single point of control that could make that decision.  Under the new model, there isn’t that point of control.  As the draft text proposed by Peter puts it:
>>> 
>>>> Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, 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, which collectively
>>>> comprise the essence of the RFC Editor Function.
>>> 
>>> We’re going to need a whole new complex process just to sort out how these individuals parts are to agree on a single liaison, if "asking the function" continues to be the way forward.
>> Right, and I suggest that we avoid that complex process by not having a
>> liaison to the IAB from the "RFC Editor Function" (if the IAB and RPC
>> etc. feel that we need a liaison from the RPC then that's much easier to
>> arrange).
> 
> Again, fix it later. The language in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter
> allows for it to be fixed later (that was intentional). If the RFC Editor
> function decides not to appoint a liaison, that's fine too.

My point was that I don’t think this can be fixed later - trying to construct a process by which the components of the new RFC Editor Function can choose a liaison, is unworkable.  The only workable solutions are those that either specify who the liaison is or specify a single point of control for the choice, as Mirja said right at the top of this thread.

Jay

> 
>   Brian
> 
>    Brian

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]