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

On 11-Mar-22 10:32, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11/03/2022, at 10:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11-Mar-22 09:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> IMHO, no. The IAB asks for a liaison *from* the RFC Editor function,
> 
> Asking the function for a liaison made sense when there was a single point of control that could make that decision.  Under the new model, there 
isn’t that point of control.  As the draft text proposed by Peter 
puts it:
> 
>> Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, various
>> responsibilities of the RFC Editor Function are now performed
>> alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series
>> Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC, which collectively
>> comprise the essence of the RFC Editor Function.
> 
> We’re going to need a whole new complex process just to sort out how these individuals parts are to agree on a single liaison, if "asking the function" continues to be the way forward.

Which is exactly why I would not attempt to bolt this onto draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model. Let it slide and fix it later.

    Brian

> 
> Jay
> 
>> so the IAB charter is the wrong place to define who appoints that
>> liaison. See my previous message...
>>
>>    Brian
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 