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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11-Mar-22 09:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> This is indeed a good question. Thanks Rob for bring this up!
> 
> I actually think there are two options here: either the IAB could have a liaison from the RPC or, if the RPC thinks this is not needed, we probably just don’t need a liaison in the new model. This seems like the only two option to me, given we definitely don’t need a liaison from the RSAB as the IAB is sending one of the representatives and I don’t think it practically makes sense to have liaison from the RSWG. Or maybe having the RSCE as a liaison to the IAB could be another option but I don’t think that would be of real interest for the new RSCE role…?
> 
> It seems like this is actually something we might also want to update as well in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter. Brian? Lars?

IMHO, no. The IAB asks for a liaison *from* the RFC Editor function,
so the IAB charter is the wrong place to define who appoints that
liaison. See my previous message...

    Brian
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10. Mar 2022, at 21:13, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/10/22 3:41 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>>> Changing the title to help ensure that this comment is tracked against draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.
>>> Still suffering from Covid, and I'm now way behind on email, so perhaps this has already been resolved, but I think that the issue below needs 
to be resolved before the document is published.
>>> Regards,
>>> Rob
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: 07 March 2022 19:40
>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-06: (with COMMENT)
>>> Rob,
>>> On 07-Mar-22 23:58, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
>>> ...
>>>    
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>      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 isn't entirely clear to me exactly who (as in which person or body) is
>>>> actually responsible for appointing a liaison member to the IAB (given, as per
>>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, the RFC editor function responsibilities are
>>>> split up into multiple entities).  My assumption is that this would be RSAB,
>>>> but perhaps I mistaken.  Would it be helpful to clarify this - perhaps in
>>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model?
>>> Indeed, I don't think it belongs in the IAB charter. Hence I suggest that this
>>> is really a comment that the IAB Program (in Cc:) should look at.
>>
>> This is a good question.
>>
>> One key assumption underlying version 3 of the RFC Editor Model is that the process for policy definition and implementation is no longer under 
the purview of the IAB. Therefore, I question whether the IAB still needs 
a liaison from the RFC Editor Function (whose responsibilities are now spread across multiple entities) and I would defer to the IAB (cc'd) on whether they think this is needed. (If so, we'll need to figure out who does 
the appointing, but one step at a time.)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>