Indeed -- the potential for leaving the RFC Editor
split or hanging in space is one of the driving reasons behind
elaborating the existing IAB charter text and creating
this document.
The key elements are:
. the RFC Editor has been under the auspices of
the IAB for some time (at least since the IAB
Charter, RFC2850; Ran Atkinson dated it back
to 1992).
. the IAB is supported by IASA, and therefore the
whole of the RFC Editor should be supported by
IASA
. draft-iab-rfc-editor describes how the IAB
would shepherd the definition of the independent
submissions process, which is about as light
a hand as is manageable while keeping the whole
consistent.
On that latter point -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], the list
for discussing proposals for independent submissions,
has been created:
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
And, to date, the one proposal draft I have seen is
draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt
Leslie.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 31 May, 2006 05:02 +1000 Geoff Huston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO."
I must strongly disagree here Brian - irrespective of any
details of implementation, the level of independence and
discretion granted to the RFC Editor to edit and publish
documents that are not the outcome of the IETF's peer review
process is, I believe, a central matter in any version of an
RFC Editor Charter.
While I agree with Geoff, this then makes the question of how
that charter should be reviewed and approved a critical issue.
I'm comfortable having the IAB do that, as long as it is done in
collaboration with the current RFC Editor staff rather than as
an independent decision made in an adversarial climate (I don't
read a requirement for, or an assumption of, an adversarial
climate into the draft or Leslie's note) and as long as the IAB
understands that it is responsible to a community that extends
well beyond the IETF and that may have an affirmative interest
in views that dissent from IETF (or IESG) decisions and
positions.
For those who believe that "the IETF" --presumably as
represented by the IESG-- should have controlling authority over
what the RFC Editor does across the board, I'd recommend a
thought experiment: As I understand it, none of the support for
the RFC Editor in recent years (or ever) has come from IETF
meeting fees. The support comes from ISOC and the largest
fraction of that ISOC support is earmarked corporate
contributions. Now, with the understanding that I'm neither
predicting nor advocating this course of action, suppose those
companies were convinced that an independent RFC Editor
--independent of IETF control -- was important and that they
would prefer to fund that and let the IETF take care of itself
(or, more likely, that they would fund the two separately but
control the ratios). It seems to me that would leave us in
exactly the position others have suggested: the IAB could
designate the "technical publisher" for IETF documents, but that
might be an entity completely separate from the RFC Editor and
the "RFC" name and series might stay with the entity designated
by ISOC or the relevant sponsors.
Now, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interest to avoid
getting anywhere near a state in which a scenario like that
started being seriously discussed. Doing so implies, I think,
a minimum of hubris, a minimum of assertions about IETF
authority over non-IETF documents, and a maximum of IAB working
together with the RFC Editor to find a right way forward, rather
than assuming that one body can dictate to the other.
That line of reasoning, and the consequences of the thought
experiment, leads to another conclusion which I would not have
guessed at a few weeks ago: the IAOC has limited or no authority
to compete an "RFC Editor contract" to cover tasks other than
those directly related to the IETF except on the advice and
consent of the ISOC BoT or some other ISOC entity (in either
case with the ISOC entity acting as representative of the
relevant organizational members). I believe that a
well-designed RFI process is, at worst, harmless and might
produce information that would be beneficial to all parties.
But the assumption that the IAOC can then award a contract that
covers non-IETF publications may not be reasonable.
What a strange world our reasoning and desires for more control
get us into.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
