IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Next Step - proposals?

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Mon, 10 August 2020 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.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 ACBDA3A157C for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 iwoDijg_pe-s for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4593A1574 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id q75so8941026iod.1 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1l4U166QHzIisdIVya9LzjyXhGwCePNNDI1w/c8GsxM=; b=LjKGvW1r6ZQ9OzpCepiicAYejHljfWdj1CqJOS14TZodfux1wge5ewGJAY2z5ub1UV wvjEfSt/EKtB+xI9YxkssyaOzOQSDYq38hXSyRLm+qiqschxk8Im3/0oz9bBp6YGjMgJ 7XzoBj86jKvdAZtVvPa0T6MmTEiG14yVQoSwdGmGt8cbYmcfENT462dX7dpv27v89LyF SnPcyFOVERtsktap3RiBeXjeIz1195WpioTgv4BCp41tJeoGztC8yaUCCe49VJLGDZhJ Oy60Uh4p7UuXtOX3ukrdT9W7mYV9Aa9Ub5OAqR4T1svt5tOwfxYjsMAq68zM0balKLQk CmGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1l4U166QHzIisdIVya9LzjyXhGwCePNNDI1w/c8GsxM=; b=PFqOnAu3/3ogx/bBR8Jr5/NYZ7yr83LP82WDEA/TrYtcsgGVzq+qUIkeUAowhZABPs KBE8U2lL2YPvOqBBTI9TTHMf5GXwLsEY2QIqmimCf8ZwZFzZKupExtYR385/uLBrq7EE 0Mcv2a6qYzv5SJoZAkVLtlbIt1k1+DK+HIU/lleqf2nnEToa6AwQtYP5GJPeaJCNAKS/ rAasdJmOvAzUvaSQfgWbDiR2Xe/YNptBgPed9oPj1/qQdc9s0fIm5lJPDW+ff2lCSdWD LhI53QetaSxeq/6dD9PmMaxu6WscbnX5ygrMJhX6AyCBHjZ1rL993AgB8sRvvw6O0fa9 fsHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xObG9I94jSBE5G36tOhuEJaIyv/Z990AzosrjBfhifPJ970ww pBBgbctljUp+0SRSHY6xkD+yYM6N538=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSle3qrTShF/RgaUNXhCBVONozrG75pLM3aFR4B+W15+fsTenkYY0dQKybsxTc3/UwC1MvDQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9c0c:: with SMTP id 12mr17917341ioe.142.1597067420801; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8sm11590388ilc.43.2020.08.10.06.50.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
In-Reply-To: <7d7a228a-5182-4afc-b804-1ab0c5250ac2@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:50:19 -0400
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89EA2360-A6A3-4E17-B39C-A457EB9ADD45@brianrosen.net>
References: <AFAC09A3-4242-4774-8765-45176290E9E3@brianrosen.net> <7d7a228a-5182-4afc-b804-1ab0c5250ac2@www.fastmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/VmmCvBGE9N09O5pmwiGYqCojUGc>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Next Step - proposals?
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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:50:25 -0000

Great, thanks.  Let’s keep those proposals coming.  Doesn’t have to be pretty, just get the ideas down.

Brian

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 10:43 PM, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I just updated and posted <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-rfced-model-01>.  I believe that the original did address your requirements already, but I've added a little bit more content and made a few corrections.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, at 00:55, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> The chairs would like to thank you for participating in the IETF 108 
>> meeting of the RFC Editor Futures program.  We learned quite a bit at 
>> that meeting, not the least of which was that the group is not yet 
>> prepared to choose a direction.
>> 
>> Therefore, what we are thinking is that the next step should be for 
>> people to develop fleshed out proposals.  It would be good to have 
>> several alternatives that explore the different philosophies that have 
>> been expressed in the group.  Each proposal should be very clear on a 
>> few points:
>> 
>> * Overall motivation and philosophy
>> * What each proposed entity is responsible for
>> * What the relationship of each entity is to other entities 
>> * What accountability, selection, and transparency mechanisms are in 
>> play for each entity
>> 
>> The next step would be for us to discuss these proposals and see if we 
>> can find some common ground.  Our thinking is that we would appoint a 
>> neutral editor to document that common ground, which could come from 
>> any proposal.
>> 
>> The timing for any interim to discuss these depends very much on having 
>> proposals.  There are some drafts already of course, and we hope we can 
>> have more soon.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Eliot and Brian
>> -- 
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> Rfced-future@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status