On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, John C Klensin wrote:
Lucy,
It seems to me that anything that the IAOC feels able to do without formally
asking for community consensus is a candidate for an ION unless its
significance is so broad that permanent/ archival RFC documentation is
appropriate. I believe that IAOC should be able to make that decision,
ideally announcing it in a way that would permit an appeal if someone felt
the decision was seriously out of whack.
For this particular draft, I think that translates into "you decide". If I
were deciding I would recommend ION, but that is just because I aspire to be
a charter member of the "keep unnecessary administrative clutter out of the
RFC Series" club.
Sign me up! Is there a secret handshake? Do I get to wear a fez?
john
--On Friday, February 16, 2007 13:39 -0800 Lucy Lynch
<llynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All -
At the behest of the IAOC, I recently published a draft:
"Tasks previously assigned to the IETF Executive Director"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lynch-execd-tasks-00
.txt
Which was intended to tidy up some issues left over from our
pre-BCP 101 days:
"BCP 101 [RFC4071] requires the IETF Administrative
Oversight
Committee to "designate, in consultation with the IAB and
the IESG,
the person or people who carry out the tasks that other
IETF process
documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive
Director." The
purpose of this document is to document the agreed
designations.
The RFCs updated by this document are all those that have
not already
been obsoleted which assign tasks to the IETF Executive
Director
(sometimes abbreviated as ExecD). Note that there is no
relationship
to the IAB Executive Director.
In general the tasks concerned are well defined and
closely linked to
other duties of the IETF Secretariat. Therefore, in what
follows,
almost all of them are re-assigned to the Secretariat. It
is
expected that they will normally be performed by the
person occupying
the role of Head of Secretariat."
The document kicked off a short discussion about "patchwork
RFCs"
in the IPR-WG:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04642.
html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04643.
html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04647.
html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04649.
html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04650.
html
Which we (the IAOC) thought had value. We consulted with Jorge
Contreras
who opined thusly:
First, I think we all agree that BCP 101 gives IAOC
sufficient authority to redesignate the ExecD's functions to
others. I also agree that the redesignations outlined in
your draft ID all seem reasonable and inoffensive.
The question (I think) is whether this redesignation should be
memorialized in an RFC (which would need to go through the
community consensus process), or whether IAOC could make such
redesignations in a less formal matter, either ad hoc or
through publication of an administrative document (are these
now called IONs?).
Now, the recently published RFC 4693: IETF Operational Notes
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4693.txt says:
"This document series is intended to capture the set of
procedures
that the IETF follows, but for which the RFC process is an
inappropriate documentation vehicle."
So, my question to the community, as the author of this
admittedly
pitiful draft is:
Should I withdraw the draft and publish it as an IAOC approved
ION?
This seems cleaner to me, but I'd like your input.
Thanks -
- Lucy
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf