IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Fri, 11 March 2022 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
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 5D2E93A0D27; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:11:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
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 LCU4TykEg7zS; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (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 16A353A0D29; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::9] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:9]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 22B6AlXu741155 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:10:48 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1646979050; bh=BFDH7GquHxWJTfQGE2y4ywigNqvf+WaJIpn8WD4Mi5s=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=STYYt7j/4HvuEhDdkadNjxfDppdZCbnVUIYTW+VRkrHF5oFbwjbWg3gYwJRo/xhce 8JS+APqIrgBfh4s/JeFBv66s+dhi6j163k8+HBmHdWVtCJRqTDOqj+1HNjPvBivxbq eRu1BHPJYsNoSoyXFW5ocuctVbSgRPXLrlQnJWAY=
Message-ID: <c743e34d-fe46-297e-8977-dd1e4ae1963b@lear.ch>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:10:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <BY5PR11MB41963ABAE51BC46E205087BDB50B9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <134294e0-5bd5-9b22-2d95-f6032e67f516@stpeter.im> <7D016D6C-ACCE-4431-BC83-905ECB885B5F@kuehlewind.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <7D016D6C-ACCE-4431-BC83-905ECB885B5F@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------qMwkcNYSrMjshqZWSFhJR5m7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/V3PILi2-XwCyH-Viy6SjNMs7PmI>
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: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 06:11:20 -0000

I don't think the liaison is needed in the new model.  Jean indicates 
the the RPC doesn't need it, and the IAB can always invite them onto a 
call when needed.  I do think there are some status reporting 
requirements that should be drawn up in the RSWG, but that's for later.

Since this is a change to 2850, I suggest it be tackled in 2850bis.

Eliot

On 10.03.22 21:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email