Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Without knowing the specifics of Jon's overrides - I can only say that those I know of involved poorly written or unclear documents that Jon was exercising reasonable editorial control over. If you're saying that we don't want an editor for the series - e.g. just publish what the IESG approves - let's just shut down the RFC series and open up an Internet Standards series that gets published by placing it on the website - e.g. closer to what we do with the ID series. Mike (and others w/ shorter institutional memories) you may recall that there have been several series of Internet related documents, of which the RFC series is but one. Jon was the IEN archive'est (is that a word?) at the same time he was the RFC editor. One very reasonable choice, IMHO, is to let the IESG/IAB/ISOC folks create a new, unlinked series of Internet Standards that does not involve the (apparently) messy problem of dealing with material that does not get funneled into its fairly rigid suite of processes. I've not heard a compelling technical reason to rein-in the RFC process, only legalistic ones. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Michael StJohns wrote: Brian - In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so. These are the facts as I understand them. 1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel the RFC Editor, but more recently under Bob Braden's direction. The series originated at UCLA in 1969, and Steve Crocker was the first RFC Editor. ISI was created in 1972, and Jon took over the series as RFC Editor in the early 1970s. See RFC2555. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Hi Mike, For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. See my point? Not really... Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it has. Your edited version still has essentially the same meaning as the paragraph had before. There is a big difference between contracting (for) a function and providing funding for it. You seem to think that ISOC provides philanthropic, no-strings-attached funding for the RFC Editor, which you have characterized as an organization. The RFC Editor's own website refers to the RFC Editor as a function that ISOC contracts to ISI. That is a big difference, and inserting the word for doesn't change that. A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this discussion. I think it is great that ARPA provided philanthropic funding for Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds and others to do the excellent work that they did. I don't know what contracts existed between ISI and ARPA for that work, but I also don't know that they are material to this discussion. Currently, there is a contract between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI for RFC Editor function, and that is what we're discussing now. FWIW, I agree that the contract between ISOC and ISI, which is based on an SOW produced by the IAB, includes the publication of documents that do not go through the IETF Internet Standards process. In fact, the IAB and the IRTF are two of the groups that currently publish RFCs outside of the IETF Internet Standards process, along other groups and individuals. ISOC is currently contracting ISI to provide the full RFC Editor function defined in that SOW, not just the Internet Standards portion. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of everyone else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) do to. I'm not sure how you could read it that way, because that isn't what in particular means... If the RFC Editor wanted to say what you're saying, they could have used the term including. The RFC Editor is a professional technical editing organization, so I doubt they are as loose with their wording as your interpretation implies. We're probably carrying this analysis too far, though. The document I was quoting was a FAQ on the RFC Editor web site. The only documents that really define the relationship between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI are the SOW (produced by the IAB) and the ISOC/ISI contract. All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let for publishing such standards. There is currently an IETF effort underway to define our publication requirements for the Internet Standards series and other IETF documents, and that effort is entirely separate from this IAB document. Whether or not it should be separate is the subject of another thread of discussion. Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. I don't actually know who, if anyone, owns these terms. I don't expect that they are trademarked or legally owned by anyone, as there is no indication of that on the RFC Editor web site. I they were owned by someone, though, we should be looking to transfer ownership to the IETF Trust not to ISOC. Mike, your arguments seem to mainly consist of stating what the structure of the RFC Editor function was during a period when ARPA was funding it. I think I understand what you are saying about how the RFC Editor function was structured then, but I don't understand why you think it is (or even should be) structured exactly the same way today. For many years since the ARPA funding was withdrawn, the RFC Editor has operated under SOWs from the IAB and contracts with ISOC, and those documents have been adjusted from time-to-time to meet the
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
May I suggest a different set of questions, on the independent list? Instead of arguing about what the RFC Editor is, or who created, defines, or controls it, lets try to figure out whether we need to change the current situation, and if so what changes we need to make. 1) Does John Klensin's draft accurately describe what we are currently doing? I believe so. 2) Do the small changes he proposes to have done make sense? Primarily, those seem to relate providing an appeals path. 3) Are their other changes to the current situation we would like to make? Lets not arguing about what goes in which contract, or whose pocket the money comes from. Please. Yours, Joel M. Halpern ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Hi Joel, I don't think that the document that Mike and I have been discussing is the same one that you're talking about... The one we've been discussing is draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.txt, which is an RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB, with Leslie Daigle acting as editor. The document that you are discussing is, presumably, draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt. That is a proposal from John Klensin to refine the RFC Editor individual submissions path. Another pertinent draft in this area is draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt, which is the result of an IETF effort to define our requirements for technical publication of IETF documents (part of what the RFC editor currently does), written by Allison Mankin and Stephen Hayes. There have been BOFs held on this topic, and there may be a separate mailing list for discussion of this work. These documents are all related to each other, and people who are interested in this topic should probably read all three of them. Margaret -Original Message- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:23 PM To: Margaret Wasserman; 'Michael StJohns' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control May I suggest a different set of questions, on the independent list? Instead of arguing about what the RFC Editor is, or who created, defines, or controls it, lets try to figure out whether we need to change the current situation, and if so what changes we need to make. 1) Does John Klensin's draft accurately describe what we are currently doing? I believe so. 2) Do the small changes he proposes to have done make sense? Primarily, those seem to relate providing an appeals path. 3) Are their other changes to the current situation we would like to make? Lets not arguing about what goes in which contract, or whose pocket the money comes from. Please. Yours, Joel M. Halpern ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
I would agree that folks should read all three documents. However, as far as I can tell, Mike's concerns with draft-iab-rfc-editor all revolve around the status and support of independent contributions. It would seem much more effective to resolve that view, and then discuss the exact wording in the charter to reflect what we have agreed we want. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 12:40 PM 6/11/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Joel, I don't think that the document that Mike and I have been discussing is the same one that you're talking about... The one we've been discussing is draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.txt, which is an RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB, with Leslie Daigle acting as editor. The document that you are discussing is, presumably, draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt. That is a proposal from John Klensin to refine the RFC Editor individual submissions path. Another pertinent draft in this area is draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt, which is the result of an IETF effort to define our requirements for technical publication of IETF documents (part of what the RFC editor currently does), written by Allison Mankin and Stephen Hayes. There have been BOFs held on this topic, and there may be a separate mailing list for discussion of this work. These documents are all related to each other, and people who are interested in this topic should probably read all three of them. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read the legislative history. For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. See my point? Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it has. A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this discussion. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of everyone else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) do to. All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let for publishing such standards. If that contract is let to ISI I would expect it to continue under the RFC imprint. If that contract is let to another organization, I wouldn't expect it to continue under the RFC imprint and I'm OK with that. Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. Bolded the above because they keep getting missed. Mike At 02:43 PM 6/10/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what the law is you have to read the legislative history. For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. See my point? Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it has. A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this discussion. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of everyone else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) do to. All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let for publishing such standards. If that contract is let to ISI I would expect it to continue under the RFC imprint. If that contract is let to another organization, I wouldn't expect it to continue under the RFC imprint and I'm OK with that. Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. Bolded the above because they keep getting missed. Mike At 02:43 PM 6/10/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Mike, Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. I'll grant that you have a much longer history in the IETF than I do, but your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status of this work. For instance, the RFC Editor web site says: 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today? The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see 30 Years of RFCs. If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else. I am not saying that we should. IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past. The RFC Editor web site also says: 2. Every RFC is attributed to the Network Working Group. What working group is that? This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in form and symbolic in content. Historically, network working group meant the set of researchers who developed the packet switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series, and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not, may be with us for many years. Today, the Network Working Group should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF umbrella. I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series. At this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do so. Margaret
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Brian - In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so. These are the facts as I understand them. 1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel the RFC Editor, but more recently under Bob Braden's direction. 2) The RFC Series was first begun in 1969 and was for the most part a commentary on the ARPANet experiment until the late 1970's. 3) The RFC editor function was paid for in its entirety by the US Government from 1969 until sometime in 1997-98. 4) The IETF didn't begin until 1986. 5) The first lists of IAB standards didn't appear until 1988 (RFC1083) and that document made it clear that standards were only a part of what the RFC Editor did. Note that at that time the author of 1083 was listed as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board It wasn't for another few years (approx 1991 I believe) that the split of standards into Draft/Proposed/Standard began to be reflected in the successor documents to 1083 6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the IAB going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how far) so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was correct, but to more properly state it The IAB [in the person of the RFC editor] is responsible for editorial management... brackets mine. Jon was a polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in his life - I'm not surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't see its as a distinction with a difference. 7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process. It is not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor. 8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art RFC Editor or RFC Series to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC. E.g. the mere fact the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not necessarily give them ownership of that term or the series itself. Conclusions: 1) The RFC Editor is not just the Internet Standards process. 2) The RFC Series, while it is currently the archival series for the Internet Standards, is broader than just that process. 3) The Internet Standards series could be published by another channel. 4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series probably vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and some other entity. These facts and conclusions lead me to the conclusion that the RFC Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the publisher of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC Editor. The IETF/IABs interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to those specific roles we ask him to take on for us and must not bleed over into to trying to control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization. With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor answerable to the community - I wouldn't. I'd make the publisher of Internet Standards answerable for the publication of Internet standards and not interfere in the other work they're doing. E.g. if you don't like what the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move the standards series someplace else. If you do move it someplace else, don't expect to constrain what else they do. If you want that series to be the RFC series - ask ISI nicely for the transfer of rights to the IAOC. Once that happens I'll shut up about the need to keep in mind that the RFC Editor and the publisher of Internet Standards are two distinct roles. To be blunt - this is a grab for power. Certain persons don't like the independence of the RFC Editor and want total control over the editorial process. I'm at times minded of state control over newspapers in some of our less progressive countries. I'm pretty disgusted we've fallen to this point. At 03:37 AM 6/7/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: ... In the doc It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. This is incorrect. Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was in 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration, because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising: I was the editor of RFC 2850.] It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994): The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series... which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992): [IAB] responsibilities shall include: ... (2) The editorial management and publication of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the archival publication series for Internet Standards and related contributions by the Internet research and engineering
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't. No we don't want that, but we also don't want RFC Editor as directly part IETF structure or answerable to it for everything it does. I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC Editor believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did not go through IETF process). Such contract can in itself be considered as describing RFC Editor operations as they relate to IETF and be published as an RFC. But it would not be an exclusive description of all that RFC Editor does. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader mandate than IETF standards. The IAB document is consistent with the operational facts that have governed operation at least in the years since ISOC has been funding the RFC Editor effort, and offers a way forward to ensure a continued funded independent series which respects that history. I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal; I am not hearing a viable alternative proposal that respects the governing operational reality. I believe pursuing this line of argument overlooks the intervening history (e.g., *all* RFCs since approx 2000 bear ISOC copyright; the RFC Editor work was done under contract as work for hire). Worse, I believe pursuing this line of argument can only lead to a future where the RFC series is split (IETF documents and not), and the RFC Editor function expires for lack of financial support. (I haven't heard your proposal for how that doesn't happen?). In short -- the draft is a best effort proposal for establishing a viable future that respects the history of this function and gives it a future. *Please* contribute to making this proposal better, don't just say it ain't so! BTW, the discussion of that independent submission stream is at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Leslie. Michael StJohns wrote: Brian - In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so. These are the facts as I understand them. 1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel the RFC Editor, but more recently under Bob Braden's direction. 2) The RFC Series was first begun in 1969 and was for the most part a commentary on the ARPANet experiment until the late 1970's. 3) The RFC editor function was paid for in its entirety by the US Government from 1969 until sometime in 1997-98. 4) The IETF didn't begin until 1986. 5) The first lists of IAB standards didn't appear until 1988 (RFC1083) and that document made it clear that standards were only a part of what the RFC Editor did. Note that at that time the author of 1083 was listed as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board It wasn't for another few years (approx 1991 I believe) that the split of standards into Draft/Proposed/Standard began to be reflected in the successor documents to 1083 6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the IAB going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how far) so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was correct, but to more properly state it The IAB [in the person of the RFC editor] is responsible for editorial management... brackets mine. Jon was a polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in his life - I'm not surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't see its as a distinction with a difference. 7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process. It is not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor. 8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art RFC Editor or RFC Series to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC. E.g. the mere fact the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not necessarily give them ownership of that term or the series itself. Conclusions: 1) The RFC Editor is not just the Internet Standards process. 2) The RFC Series, while it is currently the archival series for the Internet Standards, is broader than just that process. 3) The Internet Standards series could be published by another channel. 4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series probably vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and some other entity. These facts and conclusions lead me to the conclusion that the RFC Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the publisher of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC Editor. The IETF/IABs interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to those specific roles we ask him to take on for us and must not bleed over into to trying to control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization. With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor answerable to the community - I wouldn't. I'd make the publisher of Internet Standards answerable for the publication of Internet standards and not interfere in the other work they're doing. E.g. if you don't like what the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move the standards series someplace else. If you do move it someplace else, don't expect to constrain what else they do. If you want that series to be the RFC series - ask ISI nicely for the transfer of rights to the IAOC. Once that happens I'll shut up about the need to keep in mind that the RFC Editor and the publisher of
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader mandate than IETF standards. What do you mean has had? The way I see it, that mandate is still there! -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
At 02:31 PM 6/9/2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't. Eliot I'm saying that may actually be the right answer for what seems to be a desire for control. Without knowing the specifics of Jon's overrides - I can only say that those I know of involved poorly written or unclear documents that Jon was exercising reasonable editorial control over. If you're saying that we don't want an editor for the series - e.g. just publish what the IESG approves - let's just shut down the RFC series and open up an Internet Standards series that gets published by placing it on the website - e.g. closer to what we do with the ID series. If we want an editor (a real editor that is - not just someone with the title but just does administrative stuff), then that editor needs to have some measure of control over the series and YES a veto for publication within that series when the submissions don't meet the standards for publication. I really don't care which at this point, but the IETF can't have it both ways. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Mike, Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't. No we don't want that, but we also don't want RFC Editor as directly part IETF structure or answerable to it for everything it does. I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC Editor believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did not go through IETF process). Such contract can in itself be considered as describing RFC Editor operations as they relate to IETF and be published as an RFC. But it would not be an exclusive description of all that RFC Editor does. And this is exactly what I believed to be the current relationship between the RFC editor and the IETF/IAB/ISOC. Apparently, the small amount of editorial oversight the RFC editor is currently placing on the Internet Standards series is perceived as too much by some. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts. The IAB document is consistent with the operational facts that have governed operation at least in the years since ISOC has been funding the RFC Editor effort, and offers a way forward to ensure a continued funded independent series which respects that history. No, actually it is not consistent. And I'd bet not legally consistent either. Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. The IAB may at any time choose to select and gain agreement with another organization for the publication of the Internet Standards series, either under the imprint of that new organization or under its own imprint (e.g. ISOC's Internet Standards Series). It could even ask the current RFC Editor to publish such an imprint. In the publishing business, an imprint is a brand name under which a work is published. What the IAB can't do is direct the RFC Editor what it can and cannot publish under the RFC imprint. The RFC Editor can (and has) agree to limit what it publishes under the imprint (e.g. the RFC editor won't publish competing standards as a way of subverting the process). I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal; No - you understand wrong. I'm disagreeing with the characterization of this document as a charter for the RFC editor. Change the words so that it refers simply to the Internet Standards series, note that the series is currently published under the RFC imprint by the RFC editor at ISI and that the funding for the RFC editor comes from ISOC and I'll be fairly happy. This should be a requirements document for how you want the Internet Standards publication process to work, not a whip to the back of the RFC editor. Keep in mind that at the end of this the requirements for the publication of Internet Standards may be disjoint with the requirements for the publication of RFCs. I am not hearing a viable alternative proposal that respects the governing operational reality. I believe pursuing this line of argument overlooks the intervening history (e.g., *all* RFCs since approx 2000 bear ISOC copyright; the RFC Editor work was done under contract as work for hire). ISOC retains the copyright to the work published - this is true. But the mere fact that ISOC paid for the publication within the RFC series does not translate to ISOC owning the RFC series. If the RFC series had come into being as a result of the 2000 agreement the series might belong to ISOC. If the RFC series had only published Internet Standards since 2000 the series might belong to ISOC. Neither of these are the case and its doubtful ISOC can claim ownership of the series regardless if its ownership of copyright of contents. For example, at one point in time the IETF considered publication of its standards series with ISO and with IEEE. Had we done that I'm pretty sure we wouldn't today be claiming we owned IEEE Transactions in Internet Standards. Worse, I believe pursuing this line of argument can only lead to a future where the RFC series is split (IETF documents and not), and the RFC Editor function expires for lack of financial support. (I haven't heard your proposal for how that doesn't happen?). And again - this may happen, but its not for the IAB or IETF to be trying to specify what the RFC editor can and can't do under its own imprint. You need to step back, separate the publication of Internet Standards from the organization actually doing the publication. Re-write the document in a form the describes the requirements the IAB has for this one specific task. If you want the RFC editor to do those tasks, get their agreement and more get it written into the contract. If they decide they're done with the process, be prepared to start a new series that isn't the RFCs. The RFC name is not magical - its just historic. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Mike, Michael StJohns wrote: At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts. That's a mischaracterization of what I said, and I'll accept an apology. The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. No, ISI publishes (all) RFCs under contract from ISOC. Fact. rest deleted Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, Michael StJohns wrote: At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: Mike, I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here: I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts. That's a mischaracterization of what I said, and I'll accept an apology. You said I'm not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes the complete set of facts here. Which I took to mean that What I believe are the facts are indeed the facts and I won't be trying to integrate other views of the facts into my world view nor will I do you the courtesy of trying to understand your point of view on the facts. Perhaps my flippant comment was a mis-characterization and for that I apologize, but it was much milder than I was thinking. The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series. No, ISI publishes (all) RFCs under contract from ISOC. Fact. This can mean either: ISOC owns the RFC series and is paying ISI as their agent to publish such a series or ISI owns the RFC series and ISOC is paying them to publish additional documents under that imprint. I believe the latter is correct absent any offer of proof of transfer of rights. rest deleted You asked for constructive comment. I provided it. You ignored it. Interesting method for gaining consensus. Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
* * I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between * IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor * agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not * be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC Editor * believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for * its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did not * go through IETF process). * Which exactly describes the current situation, I believe. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Michael StJohns wrote: ... In the doc It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. This is incorrect. Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was in 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration, because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising: I was the editor of RFC 2850.] It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994): The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series... which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992): [IAB] responsibilities shall include: ... (2) The editorial management and publication of the Request for Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the archival publication series for Internet Standards and related contributions by the Internet research and engineering community. I am very puzzled by how you believe that the RFC Editor can be made answerable to the community otherwise. I would object most strongly to any notion that the RFC Editor's authority should be self-perpetuating. I would also object to erecting a new bureaucracy for community oversight, given that the IAB exists and is put in place by (and can be ejected by) a community process. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
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
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Margaret Wasserman wrote: If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals mechanism available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism for IAB decisions. Should there be? Depends for what. Standards related actions? Sure. Contracts and liaison decisions? No, other than those necessary for us to retain our relationship with ISOC (it takes a lawyer to answer that). Really. Let's all be adults and not micromanage people who we asked to do a job. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Hi Eliot, I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the IESG I expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community oversight comes in the form of the NOMCOM. If you believe that oversight is not effective, then let's discuss that instead. If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals mechanism available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism for IAB decisions. Should there be? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals mechanism available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism for IAB decisions. Should there be? Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026. As with an appeal to the IAB, the question changes somewhat when it is invoked (an appeal to the IESG claims a bad decision by a WG chair or an AD, while an appeal to the IAB claims a process failure), and in point of fact it has never been invoked. An appeal in each case reviews the actions of a lower level, and if upheld, tells the lower level to fix its process and then review its decision according to the revised process; an appeal of the IAB's decision is questioning the process documents that govern the IETF, and if upheld, directs that they be revised according to an appropriate process. - RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or not the Internet standards procedures have been followed and with respect to all questions of technical merit. 6.5.2 Process Failures This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to ensure openness and fairness of the Internet Standards Process, and the technical viability of the standards created. The IESG is the principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it is the IESG that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action have been met. If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further action is needed. The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the IETF. Should the complainant not be satisfied with the outcome of the IESG review, an appeal may be lodged to the IAB. The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG, or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not, however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which only the IESG is empowered to make. The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether or not the Internet standards procedures have been followed. 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process. Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of Trustees. The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the Trustees' review of the appeal. The Trustees shall review the Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 23] ^L RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process October 1996 situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on the outcome of its review. The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final with respect to all aspects of the dispute. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On 5/31/06, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: There isn't any documented appeals mechanism for IAB decisions. Should there be? Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026. Fred, Do you read that as being able to say the IAB made a mistake in their (RFC Editor selection|liaison management|other IAB-assigned task)? I read it as being able to say the IAB upheld my appeal to the IESG because RFC 2026 supports them, but RFC 2026 is wrong and nothing more. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On May 31, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Bill Fenner wrote: Do you read that as being able to say the IAB made a mistake in their (RFC Editor selection|liaison management|other IAB-assigned task)? I read it as being able to say the IAB upheld my appeal to the IESG because RFC 2026 supports them, but RFC 2026 is wrong and nothing more. Well, since RFC 2026 assigns the tasks (or perhaps more properly, notes that the tasks have been so assigned), if the community thought the IAB did something wrong in their tasks, they would appeal on that basis to the ISOC Board. You are correct that the set of responses that the ISOC Board is empowered to give is not particularly broad - the board would basically be forced to say that RFC 2026 assigned the task to the wrong group, and direct the IETF to conduct an appropriate process to figure out who should have been given the job. In context, that translates roughly as you guys go talk about it and come up with a more appropriate solution. The interesting question is not who the IAB appeals go to, though. It is to whom the IAOC appeals go. After all, if it is the IAD that signs contracts such as the RFC Editor's contract, he is overseen by the IAOC, and the IAOC is very carefully structured as *not* reporting to the ISOC Board. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Robert Sayre wrote: On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet Standards Process The problem with such documents is that their final designation does not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy. I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations with Non-Standard, and requiring that any non-WG product (including submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort. There IS certainly a case for some better way of differentiating between the various types of RFC so that there is no misrepresentation to, or misinterpretation by, the end user. Perhaps we should add an indicator in the numbering scheme to call this out, something like; RFC==consensus/std, iRFC==informational, xRFC==independant, vRFC==vendor-spec etc etc. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Sam, However there needs to be a way for a member of this community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support, and to have that proposal be adopted. I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their own. However the community needs the ability to either guide the IAB or override the IAB if there is disagreement. I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the IESG I expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community oversight comes in the form of the NOMCOM. If you believe that oversight is not effective, then let's discuss that instead. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Eliot, I am not sure where the disagreement between what you're saying and what Sam said earlier is - unless you're saying that it is not necessary for the IETF to have an over-ride ability on specific issues. It would be nice if the IETF had a direct appeal to the community (by some definition) for IAB activities. That would likely require a somewhat more concrete definition than we have at present, and would probably require some for of voting. But we do have an appeals process that usually takes into account reaction from the community. I think the strongest point of agreement is that - if the IAB appears too thick-skinned in terms of its reaction to the commmunity - then the NOMCOM function will eventually shake it out. But surely you would not argue that the NOMCOM is the way to address short-term, or issue specific, community disagreement with the IAB, are you? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:36 AM -- To: Sam Hartman -- Cc: Pete Resnick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control -- -- Sam, -- -- However there needs to be a way for a member of this -- community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get -- enough support, -- and to have that proposal be adopted. -- -- I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of -- things on their -- own. However the community needs the ability to either -- guide the IAB -- or override the IAB if there is disagreement. -- -- -- I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the IESG I -- expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community oversight -- comes in the -- form of the NOMCOM. If you believe that oversight is not effective, -- then let's discuss that instead. -- -- Eliot -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Look at draft-ietf-newtrk-docid-00.txt This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO. Brian Stewart Bryant wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet Standards Process The problem with such documents is that their final designation does not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy. I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations with Non-Standard, and requiring that any non-WG product (including submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort. There IS certainly a case for some better way of differentiating between the various types of RFC so that there is no misrepresentation to, or misinterpretation by, the end user. Perhaps we should add an indicator in the numbering scheme to call this out, something like; RFC==consensus/std, iRFC==informational, xRFC==independant, vRFC==vendor-spec etc etc. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
As always, Eric, my concern is that we can overprocess things. In New Jersey, where I come from, this usually involves hair. In standards bodies it involves rules. Even the doc I put out about obsoleting well known ports concerns me a little about adding process. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
I'm in complete agreement with Eliot (but that may be off point for the general topic). In recent years the IETF has been struck by a particularly virulent form of back seat driver syndrome which has not only caused the community to believe they should second guess all possible decisions, but unfortunately seems to have had that effect on both the IAB and IESG as well. Note that I'm not against the IAB and/or IESG soliciting comments on general goals, specific issues or even whether to serve cookies at the break, but they got selected to deal with the bulk of the day to day issues and we should just let them. On the specific topic of the RFC editor though, and the amount of independence of that function, this is a battle that has been fought repeatedly. This particular document has a number of incorrect assumptions - particularly the one that the RFC series belongs to the IETF. In the doc It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. This is incorrect. It should read: It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as a channel for the publication of Internet Standards and prescribe the manner in which such standards are approved. E.g. the IAB can choose who publishes the ISs, but that doesn't necessarily give the IAB control over everything that organization publishes. The RFC series just happens to be the current (and historical) channel for getting internet standards published. If the IAB decided to go another direction (e.g. new organization for hire) it's unclear the RFC name would follow the internet standards to the new organization. The document should be re-written to take the above into account. The RFC series is and always has been wider than just what the IETF (IAB, IESG, IRTF etc) has in mind. It's independence from those bodies has been key to avoid some pretty large misteps in the past and has been key to getting the broader community involved. It's hubris (and somewhat of a landgrab) to declare after all this time that Consistent with the rest of the streams, there needs to be a community consensus document to define that [independent submission] process. The IAB will establish a community forum for defining a community consensus based document to define the approval process for this stream. The IAB will be responsible for gauging consensus on that document, as well as providing the forum for any needed future revisions of the document. I believe the RFC editor continues to be well equipped to handle independent submissions and to set their own process consistent with the best interests of the community. E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission process at least with this channel Mike At 11:35 AM 5/30/2006, Eliot Lear wrote: Sam, However there needs to be a way for a member of this community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support, and to have that proposal be adopted. I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their own. However the community needs the ability to either guide the IAB or override the IAB if there is disagreement. I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the IESG I expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community oversight comes in the form of the NOMCOM. If you believe that oversight is not effective, then let's discuss that instead. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
this summary is right on E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission process at least with this channel so is the rest of Mike's message Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
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. regards, Geoff At 02:00 AM 31/05/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Look at draft-ietf-newtrk-docid-00.txt This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO. Brian Stewart Bryant wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet Standards Process The problem with such documents is that their final designation does not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy. I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations with Non-Standard, and requiring that any non-WG product (including submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort. There IS certainly a case for some better way of differentiating between the various types of RFC so that there is no misrepresentation to, or misinterpretation by, the end user. Perhaps we should add an indicator in the numbering scheme to call this out, something like; RFC==consensus/std, iRFC==informational, xRFC==independant, vRFC==vendor-spec etc etc. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
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. how could be any other way? Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
--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
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated NONSENSE. Who is this we to whom you are referring that is paying for it? The IETF folks who happen to go to face-to-face meetings (which isn't nearly everyone in the IETF community, let alone everyone who gets to publish RFCs) pay enough to cover meeting costs and a part of the secretariat. So the money you are talking about is really ISOC money, and you had better not be claiming that the RFC Editor is accountable to ISOC's corporate sponsors. I also notice how you quickly slip from IETF Community (which some people mean to encompass the IAB, IRTF, and assorted other folks who might have reason to publish RFCs) straight to IETF: In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP placing requirements on an rfc-editor stream. We've done this with RFC 3932 for example, and I think that was a good thing. In effect, community consensus within the IETF should trump anything else. Absolutely not. I strenuously object to any such attempt. RFC 3932 was the IESG telling the RFC Editor that it was no longer going to do technical review of non-IETF documents (something that it should never have been doing in the first place) and the RFC Editor and IESG officially agreeing that the IESG could put a statement of conflict on those documents. Had the IESG tried to, for instance, say that it could stop certain RFCs from being published, the ensuing constitutional crisis would have been less than amusing. The IESG (in the name of the IETF) does *not* get to control the publication practices of the IAB, or the IRTF, or any other person or group that happens to publish through the RFC Editor. And they bloody-well don't get to control the RFC Editor. If you want to push for changes to RFC 2850 which change how that works, you go right ahead. You won't get my support. I also have specific concerns about how this document interacts with the IAOC and IASA. 1) The document gives the IAB the authority to terminate the rfc-editor contract. Depending on when we do that, there may be significant budget impacts and it may not be consistent with ISOC's carrying out its financial responsibilities to terminate the rfc-editor contract at an arbitrary point in time. 2) The document allows the IAB to create new streams of rfcs on its own authority. It seems that we need ISOC and IAOC approval at least on the budget question to do so. The number of IETF working groups affects the budget too. But creation of working groups (even 50 new ones) does not require ISOC or IAOC approval. Should a point come when a decision of the IESG significantly impacts the budget, ISOC and the IAOC will surely let the IESG know that through its liaisons and decisions can be made at that time how to best accommodate the situation. There is no need for any formal requirement of approval, and in fact I would claim that such a requirement runs counter to the whole idea of the administrative restructuring: There is a separate entity (IASA) with a separate oversight committee (IAOC) such that there is no undue influence into internal processes by those who hold the purse strings. I see no need for a formal requirement of *approval* in this case either. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Pete == Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pete On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. Pete Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated Pete NONSENSE. Who is this we to whom you are referring that is Pete paying for it? The IETF folks who happen to go to Pete face-to-face meetings (which isn't nearly everyone in the Pete IETF community, let alone everyone who gets to publish Pete RFCs) pay enough to cover meeting costs and a part of the Pete secretariat. So the money you are talking about is really Pete ISOC money, and you had better not be claiming that the RFC Pete Editor is accountable to ISOC's corporate sponsors. We, here, is the set of people collectively who recently decided that we wanted greater budget accountability and went to a lot of trouble to form IASA and to start documenting a bunch of informal arrangements. As part of that I at least expected to have greater accountability to the community. I don't care what community. I don't see a difference between IETF, IETF community, Internet community and rfc-interest community. I understand some people do. I do see a huge difference between the IAB and all of the above. (I see a huge difference between IESG and all of the above too, if anyone cares.) It's fine in my mind if the IAB judges consensus of the community whatever community that is. However there needs to be a way for a member of this community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support, and to have that proposal be adopted. I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their own. However the community needs the ability to either guide the IAB or override the IAB if there is disagreement. There needs to be a formal process because that's how we get accountabilitiy. That process needs to be open and fair. Open and fair processes have some dispute resolution/appeal mechanism. I do not relish the prospect of inventing all that all over again just for the rfc-editor. I'd much rather use the heaviest weight process (publishing a BCP) we have available to us as an override. I'm happy if the last call for such a BCP needs to have input from a broader community. I'm happy if the IAB rather than the IESG judges consensus provided there is an appeals process that involves more than just the IAB. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet Standards Process The problem with such documents is that their final designation does not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy. I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations with Non-Standard, and requiring that any non-WG product (including submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort. -- Robert Sayre ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major concern. Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP placing requirements on an rfc-editor stream. We've done this with RFC 3932 for example, and I think that was a good thing. In effect, community consensus within the IETF should trump anything else. Now, we need to be careful about how to use that consensus. Several RFC streams serve communities broader than the IETF. Unless we have good reason to do so, we should not step on those communities by overriding their requirements. I also have specific concerns about how this document interacts with the IAOC and IASA. 1) The document gives the IAB the authority to terminate the rfc-editor contract. Depending on when we do that, there may be significant budget impacts and it may not be consistent with ISOC's carrying out its financial responsibilities to terminate the rfc-editor contract at an arbitrary point in time. 2) The document allows the IAB to create new streams of rfcs on its own authority. It seems that we need ISOC and IAOC approval at least on the budget question to do so. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Sam, Some high-level responses, and I'm sure we'll hear other input: 1/ I think you're overlooking something in IETF pays for RFC Editor; RFC Editor has been paid by ISOC for years, and *that* largely comes out of contributions from corporations. We actually have no data beyond the fact that they support the RFC Editor as currently constituted (i.e., including independent submissions). We've already heard (in IETF discussion in March) input that no in fact the IETF does not get to define the *in*dependent submission process; one purpose of the planned discussion is to ensure that the process is not at odds with the IETF's standards needs, but that is very different than having the IETF define it, as you describe. 2/ Termination of any contract is always going to be based on terms in said contract. I assume ISOC BoT wouldn't approve something that leaves them with dangerous exposure; that's what they do. This document is aiming to capture the principle of the IAB's responsibility; the counter example is not right, either (the IASA giving the IAB/IETF the news that there is a new RFC Editor in town). 3/ Re. approval of ISOC BoT/IASA for creation of new streams: we need to be careful with terminology. The IASA exists to implement adminstrative support to meet the needs of the IETF IAB IRTFs needs. Leslie. Sam Hartman wrote: I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major concern. Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP placing requirements on an rfc-editor stream. We've done this with RFC 3932 for example, and I think that was a good thing. In effect, community consensus within the IETF should trump anything else. Now, we need to be careful about how to use that consensus. Several RFC streams serve communities broader than the IETF. Unless we have good reason to do so, we should not step on those communities by overriding their requirements. I also have specific concerns about how this document interacts with the IAOC and IASA. 1) The document gives the IAB the authority to terminate the rfc-editor contract. Depending on when we do that, there may be significant budget impacts and it may not be consistent with ISOC's carrying out its financial responsibilities to terminate the rfc-editor contract at an arbitrary point in time. 2) The document allows the IAB to create new streams of rfcs on its own authority. It seems that we need ISOC and IAOC approval at least on the budget question to do so. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leslie Sam, Leslie Some high-level responses, and I'm sure we'll hear other Leslie input: Leslie 1/ I think you're overlooking something in IETF pays for Leslie RFC Editor; RFC Editor has been paid by ISOC for years, Leslie and *that* largely comes out of contributions from Leslie corporations. We actually have no data beyond the fact Leslie that they support the RFC Editor as currently constituted Leslie (i.e., including independent submissions). Leslie We've already heard (in IETF discussion in March) input Leslie that no in fact the IETF does not get to define the Leslie *in*dependent submission process; one purpose of the Leslie planned discussion is to ensure that the process is not at Leslie odds with the IETF's standards needs, but that is very Leslie different than having the IETF define it, as you describe. OK. I was not paying that much attention in March,and if I'm too late, I certainly have no problem with the community choosing to allow a broader group to control the independent submission track, or to seed that to the IAB. I think though that the community ultimately needs to have the power to take back anything it has given. Basically, I think it is critical that ultimately everything within the greater IETF context be accountable to the IETF community. That is true of the IESG, the IAB and everything they do. I don't think this document represents that. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
Howdy, I think though that the community ultimately needs to have the power to take back anything it has given. Basically, I think it is critical that ultimately everything within the greater IETF context be accountable to the IETF community. That is true of the IESG, the IAB and everything they do. I don't think this document represents that. It is, at its heart, an -00 :-) Let's work on trying to fix the text before assuming the whole structure is wrong. Let's set aside *which* community for a moment (IETF community or something larger) and work on making sure the document is clear where the IAB makes decisions versus where it facilitates the detection of and action upon consensus. Can you propose some text improvements? Leslie. Sam Hartman wrote: Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leslie Sam, Leslie Some high-level responses, and I'm sure we'll hear other Leslie input: Leslie 1/ I think you're overlooking something in IETF pays for Leslie RFC Editor; RFC Editor has been paid by ISOC for years, Leslie and *that* largely comes out of contributions from Leslie corporations. We actually have no data beyond the fact Leslie that they support the RFC Editor as currently constituted Leslie (i.e., including independent submissions). Leslie We've already heard (in IETF discussion in March) input Leslie that no in fact the IETF does not get to define the Leslie *in*dependent submission process; one purpose of the Leslie planned discussion is to ensure that the process is not at Leslie odds with the IETF's standards needs, but that is very Leslie different than having the IETF define it, as you describe. OK. I was not paying that much attention in March,and if I'm too late, I certainly have no problem with the community choosing to allow a broader group to control the independent submission track, or to seed that to the IAB. I think though that the community ultimately needs to have the power to take back anything it has given. Basically, I think it is critical that ultimately everything within the greater IETF context be accountable to the IETF community. That is true of the IESG, the IAB and everything they do. I don't think this document represents that. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
