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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I trimmed the Cc.

At 09:12 AM 14-03-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
>So, now we are creating an RSWG that is sort of like an IETF WG
>except where it isn't and an RSAB that is sort of like -- well,
>I don't know what it is sort of like unless it is IAB-lite.  We
>are eliminating a key (even if sometimes problematic) role and
>oversight authority in the RSE -- a role that was based in
>technical publications knowledge and experience -- replacing
>part of it with committees, the majority of whose participants
>are unlikely to have that knowledge and experience, an advisory
>function whose parameters will have to be sorted out over time,
>and giving vastly more authority to the LLC and its leadership.
>Every one of those changes may be desirable and reflect the need
>to solve real problems but, because of the extent of the changes
>and the degree to which we are going into territory we think we
>understand (but may not), it is an experiment and the other old
>IETF metaphor is a question: "what could possibly go wrong?".

The current (soon to be obsoleted) model was described as "running 
code".  The proposal which came out of this Internet Architecture 
Board program is a mishmash of ideas borrowed from the IETF 
model.  The authority given to the IETF Administration LLC is a side 
effect of a previous decision taken by the IETF.

If the proposal is an experiment, shouldn't it be categorized as 
"experimental" instead of "informational"?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy