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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 13 March 2022 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6A43A073D; Sun, 13 Mar 2022 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tDfr7xNlIej; Sun, 13 Mar 2022 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A90A3A067A; Sun, 13 Mar 2022 11:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1nTTLX-000NTv-Sm; Sun, 13 Mar 2022 14:53:39 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 14:53:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, rfced-future@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <C2E0E777CD125A1439F4AACD@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <e4b25205-af63-aff5-dbcc-9a16aa86b07d@lear.ch>
References: <BY5PR11MB41963ABAE51BC46E205087BDB50B9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <134294e0-5bd5-9b22-2d95-f6032e67f516@stpeter.im> <7D016D6C-ACCE-4431-BC83-905ECB885B5F@kuehlewind.net> <bf702de8-a876-3d9f-23d8-4ba49f86bd05@gmail.com> <E8C97678-AD00-402B-9646-DEFF6E76263D@ietf.org> <d4ac965c-65b1-e909-864c-cb14e27a3b0f@stpeter.im> <040d9aac-04be-2bef-fad4-b41f2af271e9@gmail.com> <B87EBCF2-16FB-4A22-86FF-20603200E749@ietf.org> <e012452a-61d1-f499-f19e-6d3ff9863901@gmail.com> <4AD933FC-4032-4A10-92DD-A34ADEDD557F@eggert.org> <CANMZLAZmrdxQuGT=W36gUf3gEd3d1C_0c-hfdO2-gpFUOQf7sg@mail.gmail.com> <AB5E3E46-D450-4E21-B67B-D639F67734AE@eggert.org> <e4b25205-af63-aff5-dbcc-9a16aa86b07d@lear.ch>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Ls6ziSyOPnkNoHWcgEuTzOXMM6Y>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] RFC Editor liaison to the IAB? [was: Re: Comment on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12]
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 18:53:49 -0000

Eliot,

I have posted an objection, not to removing the liaison, but to
prevent reinstating some variation on it without going through a
long and time-consuming process of document revision. 

More explanation in a note I hope to finish and get posted
within the next several hours, but the amount of uncertainty
about details and implications of the new model -- uncertainty
that seems to have been illustrated by questions or comments
within the last week or so -- strongly suggests that, where
there are not strong arguments to the contrary, we should build
flexibility for efficient small corrections to the documents or
their interpretation rather than locking options out.

   john


--On Sunday, March 13, 2022 14:46 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear@lear.ch> wrote:

> At the moment, I am not hearing any objections.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> On 11.03.22 10:34, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 2022-3-11, at 11:29, Brian Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have no problem if there's consensus to remove the liaison,
>> I think it would be good if others in the program spoke up on
>> this, so the chairs can take consensus.