All - This is just an up-date on my own request for input: I've heard from a few folk on the list, and a few more off list and the collective feedback indicates that an IAOC approved ION would be the best way to handle the disposition of these tasks. We (the IAOC) will approve and issue an ION derived from the existing draft and I'll let the draft time out. Thanks to all who took the time to respond. - Lucy _________________________ llynch @civil-tongue.net llynch on jabber.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:39:14 -0800 (PST) From: Lucy Lynch <llynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc: ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx Subject: Request for input (patchwork RFCs) 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf