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

[Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I have no problem if there's consensus to remove the liaison, but will that
need another last call? Awaiting instructions...

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022, 20:21 Lars Eggert, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>