[Rfced-future] IAB liaison [Comment on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12]

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

On 11-Mar-22 09:13, Peter Saint-Andre 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.

Rob, I hope you feel better soon.

Peter may be right that this liaison will be of lesser importance in
future, but if that proves to be true, then the IAB can decide later
that it's no longer necessary. But if we don't specify it now,
where is the harm? The new RSWG/RSAB structure will be capable of
defining it for themselves.

otoh I don't care if we add a sentence defining this as an RSAB duty.
Again, it can be changed or abolished later.

    Brian C

>>
>> Regards,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: 07 March 2022 19:40
>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> 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
>