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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

It would also be good for IAB members to comment.

On 11.03.22 10:29, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> I have no problem if there's consensus to remove the liaison, but will 
> that need another last call? Awaiting instructions...
>
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022, 20:21 Lars Eggert, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 2022-3-11, at 2:38, Brian E Carpenter
>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > However, I would have no problem if we specify now that the RSAB
>     may (not will) designate a liaison to the IAB. If the IAB or the
>     RSAB concludes that such a liaison is not needed, the post can be
>     left vacant. This approach is consistent with the drafts as
>     approved this week, so should not delay the documents.
>
>     so I think the issue remains that RFC2850 says in Section 1.2:
>
>       The Internet Society, the RFC Editor, the IANA and the IESG each
>       appoints a liaison member to the IAB. These liaison positions
>     may not
>       be held by a full member of the IAB.
>
>     Even with this current text in draft-carpenter
>
>       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 sounds like some part of the new RFC Editor function is
>     expected to have a liaison with the IAB.
>
>     I think we're hearing that both the IAB and the RPC feel that may
>     not be necessary anymore with the new model. So that would argue
>     for changes to RFC2850 and draft-carpenter.
>
>     If the community believes that the RFC Editor function and the IAB
>     should still be required to have a direct liaison, I'd prefer if
>     we say a bit more about which part of the RFC Editor function
>     should hold that role, esp. given that the RPC indicates it need
>     not be them. That would again argue for changes to RFC2850 and
>     hence draft-carpenter.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Lars
>
>     PS: The IESG has indicated that it will keep requesting a liaison
>     from the RPC, given that we often have discussion about document
>     processing details.
>
>