Re: [Rfced-future] iRSE comments on the new RFC editor structure

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 11/5/2021 7:34 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I think there is a basic problem with this approach (at the bottom) of 
> RSWG statements.
> IESG statements are made by people appointed by and responsible to the 
> community.  We permit them to make statements that do not necessarily 
> have rough community consensus when decisions need to be made.  
> because they are our seleccted leaders.
>
> Allowing the RSWG to issue statements does not match that pattern at 
> all.  These statements are not, by the rules we have written so far, 
> even subject to review by the RSAB.  They do not require community 
> review and acceptance.
>
> People keep saying that RFCs are a lot of work.  What the numbers that 
> others have produceed show is that the work is in the working group 
> and community rough consensus process.  Either we retain that part of 
> the process, and thus the work, or we ditch that and have an 
> unaccountable body able to exercise authority of the workings of the RPC.
>
> For me, I would rather retain the work.  if the thing being done does 
> not have a long enough impact to be published, then it is clearly not 
> Policy.  Its tactics.
>
> Yours,
> Joel

Joel said it much better than I could have and I agree with this 
unconditionally. Mike


>
> On 11/5/2021 7:25 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:58 PM Brian E Carpenter 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Mirja,
>>
>>     On 05-Nov-21 22:31, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>      > Hi Brian,
>>      >
>>      >> On 4. Nov 2021, at 21:02, Brian E Carpenter
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     wrote:
>>      >>
>>      >> On 05-Nov-21 02:10, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>      >>> Actually, that's a bit overly simplified I guess. RFC3710 say
>>     “[The IESG] also
>>      >>>     administers IETF logistics, including operation of the
>>     Internet-Draft
>>      >>>     document series and the IETF meeting event.”
>>      >>> However, if you further read on, the RFC says "The IESG has web
>>     pages
>>     as part of the IETF web (www.ietf.org <http://www.ietf.org>)”.
>>      >>> This RFC was written before the datatracker was widely used and
>>     when the old ietf.org <http://ietf.org> page was still up. From the
>>     RFC it seems, however, quite
>>     cleat that all matters related to the datatracker are clearly in
>>     scope for
>>      >> the IESG, however, there are probably parts of the ietf.org
>>     <http://ietf.org> side where
>>     authority is not fully clear or lies with some other entities (e.g.
>>     information about the LLC or the IAB…).
>>      >>
>>      >> Well yes. It isn't actually said very clearly in RFC 8711, but
>>     the implication is that the LLC provides tools and the IETF web
>>     site, and controls the RFC Editor contract, which implies the RFC
>>     tools and web site.
>>      >
>>      > I have to slightly disagree here. Jay nicely separated 4
>>     different angles about the website strategy, function design,
>>     content, and infrastructure. While the LLC or RPC is responsible for
>>     the infrastructure of running
>>     and maintaining the website, there is a gap in who owns the content
>>     and functions design decisions. And based on my own interactions
>>     with the RPC I believe they also don’t want to be responsible for
>>     the content,
>>     beyond just reflect what’s written down in RFCs, as that would
>>     require more community responsibility.
>>      >
>>      > While the IESG has authority about (at least most parts of) the
>>     IESG website content, I don’t think it should be the RPC or LLC that
>>     has
>>     authority about the RFC editor website content and I don’t think
>>     that’s what RFC8711 says because otherwise this would also be true
>>     for IETF website.
>>
>>     I agree with that. As others have made clear, the boundary between
>>     policy
>>     and implementation is somewhat subjective, but except in
>>     emergencies, the
>>     RPC and LLC are not supposed to make policy.
>>
>>      > So I think we have a gap here. I don’t think the RSWG has the
>>     right structure to fill that gap (as these things don’t require
>>     policy, aka Jay’s point about strategy for the webpage) but
>>     decisions. For me the only available option is the RSAP (or
>>     something entirely new but I really hope we won’t end up adding more
>>     bureaucracy and positions to the model)...
>>
>>     Agreed, sort of. But I observe that when needed, the IESG sets
>>     policy by issuing an IESG Statement. I see no reason why the
>>     RSWG/RSAB can't issue a formal statement when the topic is not
>>     suitable for an RFC. If there are words in the draft that forbid
>>     that, we should remove those words.
>>
>>     So, someone proposes in the RSWG that the RFC Editor web site should
>>     be unavailable on the day of the full moon. There is rough consensus
>>     for this, the RSAB agrees, and puts out a formal Statement saying
>>     so. The RPC implements this.
>>
>>
>> I agree with this. This is consistent, I think with our practice of 
>> having non-RFC IESG statements that still have substantive force.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>          Brian
>>
>>      >
>>      > Mirja
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >> But as I have quoted to the point of boredom, it also says that
>>     the LLC "is expected to respect the IETF community's wishes". As far
>>     as rules go, I believe that's all we've got. It's enough, but it
>>     does seem that our
>>     draft should empower the RSWG/RSAB to *express* those wishes. We
>>     can't change RFC 8711, because we're not the IETF.
>>      >>
>>      >>    Brian
>>      >>
>>      >>> Mirja
>>      >>>> On 4. Nov 2021, at 13:59, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> On 04.11.21 13:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>      >>>>> I agree authority about the content of any page should not
>>     sit with
>>     the the LLC. For the ietf.org <http://ietf.org> page and the
>>     datatracker the authority is with the IESG which a board of
>>     community members selected by community member.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> Precisely where does it say that?  Maybe we can model that
>>     language.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> Eliot
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
>>      >>
>>      >> --
>>      >> Rfced-future mailing list
>>      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>>     <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>>      >
>>      > .
>>      >
>>
>>     --     Rfced-future mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>>     <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>>
>