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

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Thu, 10 March 2022 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <exec-director@ietf.org>
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 0742A3A1C29; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 YrgMIaW2jRLu; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfx.ietf.org (ietfx.amsl.com [4.31.198.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932683A1C2B; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0062C4396AFF; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from ietfx.ietf.org ([4.31.198.45]) by localhost (ietfx.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id urxMVdM2L5HJ; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [219.88.179.249]) by ietfx.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 711464096D23; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <bf702de8-a876-3d9f-23d8-4ba49f86bd05@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 10:32:21 +1300
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, "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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E8C97678-AD00-402B-9646-DEFF6E76263D@ietf.org>
References: <BY5PR11MB41963ABAE51BC46E205087BDB50B9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <134294e0-5bd5-9b22-2d95-f6032e67f516@stpeter.im> <7D016D6C-ACCE-4431-BC83-905ECB885B5F@kuehlewind.net> <bf702de8-a876-3d9f-23d8-4ba49f86bd05@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/c0ZyJWwwXMg6NAlK-F2QEwnKNZ4>
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 21:32:31 -0000


> On 11/03/2022, at 10:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11-Mar-22 09:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> This is indeed a good question. Thanks Rob for bring this up!
>> 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. This seems like the only two option to me, given we definitely don’t need a liaison from the RSAB as the IAB is sending one of the representatives and I don’t think it practically makes sense to have liaison from the RSWG. Or maybe having the RSCE as a liaison to the IAB could be another option but I don’t think that would be of real interest for the new RSCE role…?
>> It seems like this is actually something we might also want to update as well in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter. Brian? Lars?
> 
> IMHO, no. The IAB asks for a liaison *from* the RFC Editor function,

Asking the function for a liaison made sense when there was a single point of control that could make that decision.  Under the new model, there isn’t that point of control.  As the draft text proposed by Peter puts it:

> Under version 3 of the RFC Editor Model, various
> responsibilities of the RFC Editor Function are now performed
> alone or in combination by the RSWG, RSAB, RPC, RFC Series
> Consulting Editor (RSCE), and IETF LLC, which collectively
> comprise the essence of the RFC Editor Function.

We’re going to need a whole new complex process just to sort out how these individuals parts are to agree on a single liaison, if "asking the function" continues to be the way forward.  

Jay

> so the IAB charter is the wrong place to define who appoints that
> liaison. See my previous message...
> 
>   Brian
>>> On 10. Mar 2022, at 21:13, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> 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.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rob
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: 07 March 2022 19:40
>>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>>> Cc: draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter@ietf.org; rfced-future@iab.org
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org