Re: [Rfced-future] [IAB] Appeal: Apparent IAB approval/foregone conclusion of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for noting this is again. The plan is that the IAB discusses this on Wednesday together with the discussion about the approval of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model. I will coordinate with Lars (and you) to ensure that if the IAB wants to add a note to the document to record its support that a) the IESG will be made aware of his before approval on Thursday and b) provide a note to be added before publication. 

Mirja

 

> On 6. Mar 2022, at 20:52, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> There is a nit in my message below. The version that the IAB discussed in November was draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-03. The changes since then do not affect the wording of the IAB charter; they can of course be reviewed in the datatracker.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> On 06-Mar-22 09:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> With regard to draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter, note that this is
>> a proposed BCP so is subject to IETF consensus and IESG approval.
>> The IAB Chair informed me in late November that it had been discussed
>> (in its -05 draft) by the IAB.
>> The IAB minutes of 2021-11-17 state:
>> "During the Last Call, the IAB will make a statement that endorses the changes to the IAB charter in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter."
>> That still needs to happen, unless I missed a message.
>> Regards
>>     Brian Carpenter
>> On 06-Mar-22 07:18, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> IAB,
>>> 
>>> The announcement of your agenda [1] was sent out within the two
>>> hours before I started writing this note.
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt was posted well under 24
>>> hours ago.  Yet the agenda says, as a document update report:
>>> 	"Approved for publication:
>>> 	draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12"
>>> 	
>>> While I have every hope that some version of
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model will be able to be approved by the
>>> IAB before the open meeting on March 24, a note from the Editor
>>> refers to a "next version" and a note from the Program co-chair
>>> suggests further review within the Program.  The latter is
>>> included below, with the announcement detailed elided, and
>>> includes a copy of the former.
>>> 
>>> If the IAB knew in advance exactly when -12 would be posted,
>>> scheduled an emergency meeting immediately after that time, and
>>> reviewed and approved it, why was the Program (and especially
>>> the Editor and Co-chairs not informed of that so we could stop
>>> wasting our time on further reviews and improvements?  Of
>>> course, if the IAB did that review, or even a review of -11, and
>>> concluded that any additional issues could be sorted out at
>>> AUTH48, that would go directly to the importance of the recent
>>> Program discussion of what should or should not be allowed at
>>> AUTH48, at least without further community review.  The Program
>>> has apparently concluded that AUTH48 details or restrictions
>>> should be left for future work but, if the IAB intends to push
>>> new material in -12 and anything that might appear in any future
>>> I-D versions off to that process, it would probably justify
>>> reopening that discussion and perhaps focusing it more on
>>> non-IETF WG documents.
>>> 
>>> If, as I hope was the case, the inclusion of "-12" in the Agenda
>>> was just an editing error, and the IAB simply intended to report
>>> on the approval of some version of the I-D, it still seems to me
>>> inappropriate to announce approval of a document neither the IAB
>>> nor the community have had a chance to review, and, if it is not
>>> -12 even a chance to see, unless the IAB intends to accept
>>> whatever the Program produces without discussion, even
>>> discussion of key oversight issues about the process (see
>>> below).  The IAB is supposed to be responsible for the output of
>>> its Programs; I hope that responsibility is being taken
>>> seriously.
>>> 
>>> In addition:
>>> 
>>> (i) draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter is connected with
>>> 	the "RFC Editor Model" document but obviously interacts
>>> 	with the IAB and its activities.  Does the IAB intend to
>>> 	tell the community how it expects to handle that
>>> 	document and would not at least an announcement to that
>>> 	effect be appropriate during the Open Meeting?  In
>>> 	particular, the Agenda indicates that the Program will
>>> 	be closed as soon is draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model is
>>> 	published.  Should any of the other documents now being
>>> 	discussed as part of the Program, that Charter revision
>>> 	included, not be finished and published with or before
>>> 	the RFC Editor Model, would they then be abandoned?
>>> 	Some additional explanation be in order.  If all of
>>>    that will be covered comprehensively in the (I assume
>>>    forthcoming) IAB report and at the Plenary, and is not
>>>    worth mentioning as part of the Open Meeting Agenda,
>>>    why not	save a few more minutes and eliminate the
>>>    Status Update from the Open Meeting agenda entirely?
>>> 	
>>> (ii) Watching the mailing list for the Program over the
>>> 	last (nearly two) years, doing a very quick review of
>>> 	the mail archive, and remembering the discussions that
>>> 	led to the Program's creation, suggests that this work
>>> 	-- which is more than a collection of administrative and
>>> 	procedural changes but might affect the entire community
>>> 	and the broader perceptions and future effectiveness of
>>> 	the IETF (and IAB and IRTF)-- has been reviewed and
>>> 	contributed to by a tiny fraction of that community (or
>>> 	even the number of people registered for IETF 113 as of
>>> 	the last report on registrations) despite the great
>>> 	commitment of the leadership and by several of those
>>> 	involved (demonstrated by their extensive postings).
>>> 	For IETF Working Groups and documents --on which the
>>> 	Program's work process was modeled-- one important
>>> 	function of the IESG review, even if it rarely mentioned
>>> 	explicitly, is to ensure that a standards track document
>>> 	has been reviewed widely enough by parties who might be
>>> 	affected.   Does the IAB intend to consider the
>>> 	implications of the relatively narrow participation in
>>> 	the WG and the fairly narrow range of perspectives the
>>> 	participants represent?  Will that analysis be presented
>>> 	to the community or does the IAB intend to simply
>>> 	approve and announce the Program's outputs without such
>>> 	consideration?  And if there is a presentation of the
>>> 	decision, will that done in a way that is broadly
>>> 	available, made part of the record, and, if necessary,
>>> 	subject to a further appeal?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actions requested by this appeal:
>>> 
>>> (1) Do not approve, or announce that you are going to approve,
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model (or any version of it), or any
>>> other document under discussion in the Program, before the
>>> Program has concluded its work.
>>> 
>>> (2) If the IAB intends to approve whatever the Program produces
>>> without doing its own critical review of both the document(s)
>>> and the process, particularly the breadth of participation in
>>> forming the Program consensus, announce that to the community
>>> and put it on the agenda for discussion at the Plenary and/or
>>> the Open Meeting, making sure there is time for such a
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> (3) If the IAB believes that these issue deserve more open
>>> discussion with a potentially broader community than the Plenary
>>> and Open Meeting agenda would allow for, either schedule an
>>> additional meeting session during IETF or schedule an online
>>> open workshop to be held before approval.  If the latter, use
>>> the same kinds of broad outreach that
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model contemplates for
>>> potentially-significant changes... noting that this is the most
>>> potentially-significant set of changes made to the RFC Editor
>>> Function since its beginnings (as described in RFC 8700).
>>> 
>>> Please note that none of the above requests changes in either
>>> the model document nor in the way the Program has operated.  I
>>> think it is appropriate that we be at least as careful with how
>>> the process is concluded and the documents approved as the
>>> community has been in its creation and progress so far.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>>     john
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-iabopen-01
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>>> Date: Saturday, March 5, 2022 13:41 +0100
>>> From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
>>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>> 
>>> Thank you Peter.
>>> 
>>> Please note that there are a good number of changes made.  I
>>> don't think these changes substantially change the consensus
>>> established within the group, but people should review them for
>>> themselves.
>>> 
>>> Eliot
>>> 
>>> On 05.03.22 04:09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> Hi all, this version is my attempt to incorporate all feedback
>>>> received during the IAB's community call for comments. If I
>>>> have  missed anything, please post to the [e-mail]
>>>> list and I  will make the appropriate fixes in the next
>>>> version.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>>> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:05:19 -0800
>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>>> has been successfully submitted by Peter Saint-Andre and
>>>> posted to the IETF repository.
>>>> 
>>>> Name:        draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
>>>> Revision:    12
>>>> Title:        RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>>>> Document date:    2022-03-05
>>>> Group:        iab
>>>> Pages:        32
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>>> 
> 
>