On 17 Mar 2006, at 04:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Leslie Daigle wrote:
I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe
is going to be a common thread:
[Ran Atkinson wrote:]
Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly
should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern
how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the
RFC Editor.
TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically.
The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be
for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.
I think there are a couple of points to add here.
1. Since it's the IETF nomcom process that appoints the IAB, and
the IAB that oversees the IRTF, it's a bit of a stretch to say that
the IAB and IRTF aren't part of the IETF family. It would be very
artificial to completely separate these discussions. They need to
converge in the RFP anyway.
Brian,
As you know, but have not mentioned in your paragraph above,
the IAB are officially appointed by the ISoC BoT && the IESG are
officially appointed by the IAB. That is a significant fact,
legally. Further, there are known cases during the last decade
where a nominee from IETF NomCom was rejected as unsuitable by the
appointing body -- so it IS more than a rubber stamp.
My note specifically noted that the IAB, IETF, and IRTF
are all affiliated, so I was not being obtuse here. I would call
it the ISoc Family or Internet Family, however, not the IETF Family.
IETF is very important, but it is not the only important member
of the family.
It WAS a very specific organisational design decision to have
the IAB become responsible for the RFC Editor, and not the IETF
nor the IESG, in the early 90s when the current organisational
structure was created. There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents. I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored
documents.
2. We have a specific segment on the independent submissions
channel in the General Area open meeting in Dallas. I'm a defender
of the existence of that channel, but that doesn't mean it
is something that exists without being chartered, funded and
accountable in some way.
Unfortunately, the IETF meetings do not currently have
much participation from non-IETF people who are involved in the
Internet community. So that approach puts one segment of the
community in the position of deciding what is best for another
segment of the Internet community.
It would be better if that open meeting were supplemented
by IAB outreach -- and an IAB-sponsored (not IESG-sponsored)
open call for input via email -- to the broader set of folks
in the Internet community who aren't currently very involved
in IETF meetings.
The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and
not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create
or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as long as we have
the current organisational structure. That process should be
as open as possible and should include specific outreach to members
of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks.
Yours,
Ran
rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf