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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 14 March 2022 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 A07183A0923; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 03:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 bdZ4Eu1kzazh; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 03:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 146083A0B9B; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 03:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p200300dee70b8e00f9801055b1b6df0d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e70b:8e00:f980:1055:b1b6:df0d]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1nThwp-0007LK-06; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:29:07 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <1350B8E6AB2C7ECF5AF881B2@PSB>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:29:06 +0100
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5377B8F-4E09-429C-949B-03E1FC428536@kuehlewind.net>
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> <E8C97678-AD00-402B-9646-DEFF6E76263D@ietf.org> <d4ac965c-65b1-e909-864c-cb14e27a3b0f@stpeter.im> <040d9aac-04be-2bef-fad4-b41f2af271e9@gmail.com> <B87EBCF2-16FB-4A22-86FF-20603200E749@ietf.org> <e012452a-61d1-f499-f19e-6d3ff9863901@gmail.com> <4AD933FC-4032-4A10-92DD-A34ADEDD557F@eggert.org> <CANMZLAZmrdxQuGT=W36gUf3gEd3d1C_0c-hfdO2-gpFUOQf7sg@mail.gmail.com> <AB5E3E46-D450-4E21-B67B-D639F67734AE@eggert.org> <8b51b14e-7342-7336-2d3a-e163bf640c89@gmail.com> <066b58ac-ad6c-e5f0-5260-1b9e0267f198@stpeter.im> <242ecf9f-f7c7-7ff6-4199-ad8875b7ac6d@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <b17d4b9d-9456-41a7-0a62-45d35d2fbb07@gmail.com> <1350B8E6AB2C7ECF5AF881B2@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1647253751;8a6e1e48;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1nThwp-0007LK-06
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/wHQr0iRWt4zdqiBbTNUfPBX3lxM>
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: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:29:16 -0000

Hi John,

While I think it’s a good idea to probably document who is liaising with the IAB at each point of time, I don’t think we need to add the text you proposed to do that. For me the liaison that are listed in RFC2850 are the ones that are mandatory to accept for the IAB (as the community thinks that close interaction of these groups is important). However, I don’t think RFC2850 restricts the IAB in anyway to add additional liaisons (given liaisons don’t really have any special right in the process).

Mirja


> On 12. Mar 2022, at 02:58, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, March 12, 2022 13:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12-Mar-22 13:21, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-12 05:40, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> +1 to removing the liaison (no one seems to think it's
>>>> needed) and +1 to the proposed text.
>>> 
>>> +1 from me, too. I'm also okay if John Klensin's text gets
>>> included, but I don't really think that text is necessary.
>>> The IAB can talk to anybody they like at any time anyway.
>> 
>> Another point is that the rfcefdp program would be stepping
>> outside its
>> role to propose a generic change to the IAB charter. I'd
>> expect that sort
>> of change to be proposed by the IAB itself.
> 
> And I would like to hear from the IAB, or IAB members on this
> subject.   If I am the only one who would like to leave that
> door open, so be it.  If making the change that way seems
> reasonable and noting that this is the first time the charter
> document has been modified in more than 21 years in spite of far
> greater changes to the IAB than the liaison list, why not put it
> here and avoid extra work.  But the decision should definitely
> be in the IAB's hands.
> 
>   john
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future