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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 12-Mar-22 13:21, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 05:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> +1 to removing the liaison (no one seems to think it's needed) and +1 to
>> the proposed text.
> 
> +1 from me, too. I'm also okay if John Klensin's text gets included, but
> I don't really think that text is necessary. The IAB can talk to anybody
> they like at any time anyway.

Another point is that the rfcefdp program would be stepping outside its
role to propose a generic change to the IAB charter. I'd expect that sort
of change to be proposed by the IAB itself.

Rgds
    Brian

> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
>> On 3/11/22 1:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> *If* there is consensus to remove the liaison, here is is my proposed
>>> update to draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter.
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>> 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}}.
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>> RFC 2850 states that the RFC Editor appoints a liaison member
>>> to the IAB. This is no longer necessary.
>>>
>>> ADD to the "Changed text" section:
>>> In section 1.2 of RFC 2850, entitled "Ex-Officio and Liaison members"
>>> the phrase "the RFC Editor," is deleted.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>      Brian Carpenter
>>>
>>> On 11-Mar-22 22:34, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-3-11, at 11:29, Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I have no problem if there's consensus to remove the liaison,
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be good if others in the program spoke up on this,
>>>> so the chairs can take consensus.
>>>>
>>>>> but will that need another last call? Awaiting instructions...
>>>>
>>>> I think - but would not mind to be convinced otherwise - that change
>>>> would better be last-called. I can't recall of the top of my head
>>>> whether a two-week repeated last call would be possible, or if it
>>>> needs to be four weeks again.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lars
>>>>