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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2022-3-11, at 2:38, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> However, I would have no problem if we specify now that the RSAB may (not will) designate a liaison to the IAB. If the IAB or the RSAB concludes that such a liaison is not needed, the post can be left vacant. This approach is consistent with the drafts as approved this week, so should not delay the documents.

so I think the issue remains that RFC2850 says in Section 1.2:

  The Internet Society, the RFC Editor, the IANA and the IESG each
  appoints a liaison member to the IAB. These liaison positions may not
  be held by a full member of the IAB.

Even with this current text in draft-carpenter

  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 sounds like some part of the new RFC Editor function is expected to have a liaison with the IAB.

I think we're hearing that both the IAB and the RPC feel that may not be necessary anymore with the new model. So that would argue for changes to RFC2850 and draft-carpenter.

If the community believes that the RFC Editor function and the IAB should still be required to have a direct liaison, I'd prefer if we say a bit more about which part of the RFC Editor function should hold that role, esp. given that the RPC indicates it need not be them. That would again argue for changes to RFC2850 and hence draft-carpenter.

Thanks,
Lars

PS: The IESG has indicated that it will keep requesting a liaison from the RPC, given that we often have discussion about document processing details.