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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, March 12, 2022 09:08 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> 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.
>...

Brian,

I would not presume to guess where the consensus lies but, I am
concerned about backing ourselves into corners if things don't
work out the way we (or, in the case, the RPC, anticipates) and
requiring large amounts of effort to dig back out.  So, at the
risk of giving the IAB a little more authority over its own
activities (something that should be no risk at all) and noting
the liaisons to the IAB have to power to vote or otherwise make
decisions as a consequence of those role, I suggest:

(1) Using the text you suggest above.

(2) Adding, as a new fourth paragraph to Section 1 of RFC 2850,
something like:

	The IAB may, from time to time and by a procedure of its
	choosing, request that other bodies provide liaisons to
	the IAB.  Such liaisons may be discontinued at the IAB's
	discretion by the same process.  Liaisons requested and
	seated in this way will have the same status as those
	explicitly identified in this document.

That way, should either the IAB or the RPC conclude at some
point in the future that a liaison is needed (either long-term
or temporarily), they just sort that out without the need to
revise either your current document or RFC 2850.  And, should
the Internet evolve in ways we cannot anticipate today, we give
the IAB the added flexibility to establish new liaisons as
needed.

I don't think it is necessary, but I would rather have this I-D
(and hence 2850 revised) establish a place where the IAB keeps a
record on incoming liaisons, what entities they represent and
who the current representative is than to need to adjust the
Charter any time a change might be appropriate.

best,
   john