--On Wednesday, 31 May, 2006 05:02 +1000 Geoff Huston
<gih@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf