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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 10 March 2022 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 27B8D3A0E95; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:57:25 -0800 (PST)
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 4ikmB88gkEY2; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E273A0F04; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p5dec247d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.236.36.125] helo=[192.168.178.42]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1nSPqW-0002VC-0o; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 21:57:16 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <134294e0-5bd5-9b22-2d95-f6032e67f516@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 21:57:15 +0100
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D016D6C-ACCE-4431-BC83-905ECB885B5F@kuehlewind.net>
References: <BY5PR11MB41963ABAE51BC46E205087BDB50B9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <134294e0-5bd5-9b22-2d95-f6032e67f516@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1646945840;5d9bc7fe;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1nSPqW-0002VC-0o
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Q70DGhIeS6mBzmLdYOzE_UdpuwA>
Subject: [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: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 20:57:25 -0000

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?



> On 10. Mar 2022, at 21:13, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
> On 3/10/22 3:41 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>> Changing the title to help ensure that this comment is tracked against draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.
>> Still suffering from Covid, and I'm now way behind on email, so perhaps this has already been resolved, but I think that the issue below needs to be resolved before the document is published.
>> Regards,
>> Rob
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 07 March 2022 19:40
>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter@ietf.org; rfced-future@iab.org
>> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-06: (with COMMENT)
>> Rob,
>> On 07-Mar-22 23:58, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
>> ...
>>   
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>     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 isn't entirely clear to me exactly who (as in which person or body) is
>>> actually responsible for appointing a liaison member to the IAB (given, as per
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, the RFC editor function responsibilities are
>>> split up into multiple entities).  My assumption is that this would be RSAB,
>>> but perhaps I mistaken.  Would it be helpful to clarify this - perhaps in
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model?
>> Indeed, I don't think it belongs in the IAB charter. Hence I suggest that this
>> is really a comment that the IAB Program (in Cc:) should look at.
> 
> This is a good question.
> 
> One key assumption underlying version 3 of the RFC Editor Model is that the process for policy definition and implementation is no longer under the purview of the IAB. Therefore, I question whether the IAB still needs a liaison from the RFC Editor Function (whose responsibilities are now spread across multiple entities) and I would defer to the IAB (cc'd) on whether they think this is needed. (If so, we'll need to figure out who does the appointing, but one step at a time.)
> 
> Peter
> 
>