Re: [Rfced-future] [IAB] I18ndir last call review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Jay, others,

On 2022-03-02 05:02, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2/03/2022, at 8:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/28/22 2:45 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> Thanks. Just to close the loop:
>>> On 28.02.22 09:06, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>>> "In short:": What follows isn't really any much shorter than what preceded it,
>>>>>>> so the "in short" seems a bit misplaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "*  If approved, such proposals are published as RFCs in the Editorial
>>>>>>>       Stream and thus define the policies to be followed by the RSWG,
>>>>>>>       RSAB, RSCE, and RPC."
>>>>>>> Shouldn't the IETF LLC also be mentioned here? My understanding is that the LLC
>>>>>>> can say that something won't work because there's no money for it, but that
>>>>>>> once it has accepted that a policy is implementable with reasonable means, it
>>>>>>> also has to follow this policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> The LLC role is described in detail below.  I don't think mention is necessary here.
>>>>
>>>> Well, things will probably work out either way. But in my view, it would be better if it were clear here that the LLC has to follow accepted policies, too.
>>> We are very careful in the draft *not* to be prescriptive to the LLC as a whole.  The board in particular cannot be bound to this document, though they can be guided.
>>
>> I'm curious if Jay has any concerns about adding the IETF LLC to this sentence.
> 
> My view remains as previously expressed - RFC 8711 is unequivocal on the requirement for the LLC to "follow accepted policies":
> 
>       "Responsiveness to the community.  The IETF LLC is expected to act
>        consistently with the documented consensus of the IETF community,
>        to be responsive to the community's needs, and to adapt its
>        decisions in response to consensus-based community feedback."
> 
> I’m opposed to any need to restate this in any RFC that does not update/replace 8711 because a) It is unnecessary - RFC 8711 says it all;  b) we then have make sure to add that language everywhere to ensure that we never imply by omission that there are circumstances under which the LLC can not follow accepted policies; c) we then have to start considering "should we also add the IESG, the IAB, the Trust?" etc.
> 
> The RSWG, RSAB, RSCE and RPC are the key subjects of this RFC and so this is the appropriate place for setting out how they are bound by policy, and we don’t need to go any further than them.
> 
> cheers
> Jay

Sorry for bringing this up again. If the above is our common 
understanding, then the text is fine as is.

Regards,   Martin.