The IAB has issued a Call for Comment on "The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)", a document under development within the IAB Stream [RFC 4845]. The document is available for inspection here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2
"The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)" reflects one year of experience with RFC Editor Model version 1 [RFC 5620]. It describes IAB oversight of the RFC Series via delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC), as well as the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined in [RFC 2850] and [RFC 4071], so that changes to those responsibilities are out of scope.
The review period will last until July 30, 2011. If you have read the document and have comments, please send comments to iab@iab.org, with a CC: to rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org. If you have read the document and approve without any suggested changes, please also respond stating your opinion.
Information on the changes made in the latest version of the document is provided in the message from Joel M. Halpern (editor) below.
[For the IAB],
Bernard Aboba
IAB Chair
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02.txt
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
A new version of this document has been posted.
Based on the discussions that led to it, I wish to call the rfc-interest list's attention to two items in the document. Please use a separate subject line in following up, and select the appropriate copy list.
Before I get to the two comments, a note of thanks. The IAOC provided significant restructuring of the document. This made the document MUCH more readable. Thank you.
1) The IAOC provided specific text describing the vendor selection process. This is intended to preserve the spirit of the previous versions of the document, while aligning it with BCP 101 and being clearer about what has to actually happen. Several folks have expressed concern that it also changes the the degree to which the RSE is involved in the selection. Others expressed disagreement. This text has been reviewed by the IAB, but input from the broader community is sought.
2) As the RSOC began working, it was noted that the requirement in this document for documentation of the rules of the RSOC, and of the selection process for the RSE, seem much more strict here than in RFCs guiding other selection processes and bodies. The text may well be more onerous than is needed to ensure suitable community transparency. Opinions on whether this can be relaxed, and suggested text, are solicited.
Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern
