Andrew, As someone with a history that is less distinguished than yours but that involved working with the RFC Editor function (as well as IANA) on policy issues for much longer (back to the early 1980s or earlier), let me supplement what Brian and Mike have said from a somewhat different perspective. One must read some IAB and IETF documents that make assertions of authority with a certain amount of skepticism. Consensus on the IAB or IESG (even if it reflects IETF community consensus) does not make something true, any more than decisions by various historical kings and legislatures that the earth is flat or Pi is exactly 3 change the underlying geometry significantly. Jon definitely thought that he had the authority to simply refuse to publish a document if its technical quality was unacceptable (to him). I gathered from him that he had exercised it a few times. Pragmatically, that authority derived from something Mike mentioned -- funding for the RFC Editor and the Series that was independent of the IETF and even of the Internet Society after that was created. That authority was gradually tempered, in part because Jon saw it as a good idea, with the moves to require that all documents (other than April 1st ones) be posted as I-Ds before being published as RFCs and the introduction of IESG conflict reviews of documents under consideration for publication outside what we now call the IETF Stream. However, even the latter was advisory: as late as 2004, Section 5.2.2 or RFC 3710 talks about the IETF making recommendations, not requiring the RFC Editor to do as it wishes. It would be interesting to get Lyman's take on the assertion in Section 8 of RFC 1358 that the IAB not only could appoint the RFC Editor but could remove one by two-thirds vote, but I know that Jon didn't think much of the idea that they might try. Jon's supposed demotion was, IIR, somewhat similar. When the IAB was restructured post-Kobe, my understanding was that Jon chose the liaision-like role rather than an IAB membership. So, whatever one decides to do, it should not be based on the assumption that the RFC Editor function (and what we now call the RSE role) has always been in a subsidiary relationship to the IAB or even that the IAB has had the authority to hire and fire for a long time. best, john --On Monday, July 29, 2019 23:04 -0400 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > As ever, I do not speak for the Internet Society though I am > employed by it. I'm posting this note especially because I > have certain experiences not widely shared: I was all of an > IAB member, an IAB chair, an IAOC member, and an IAOC chair > during some portion of the past where various bits of RFC 6635 > applied. > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:15:10PM -0400, Donald Eastlake > wrote: > >> The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is >> "Oversight". What do people think when they hear "oversight"? >> They think that a large part the job of whoever has >> "oversight" is to review and criticize. > > I don't think that. What I think is that it is the > responsibility of the oversight body to ensure that the thing > to be overseen is accomplished according to some conditions. > I'd like to think that the conditions are well-operationalized > so that people are in a position to know about this. > > The fundamental basis of oversight is the ability to decide > whether a given overseen thing is or is not adequately done. > At a high level, this generally works out to "hire and fire" > capability. (Note you can do it other ways. Gating-function, > for instance, could do this, but it seems unwise to implement.) > > That capability with respect to the RFC Series Editor goes > back at least to RFC 2850, which says, "The IAB must approve > the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and > the general policy followed by the RFC Editor." This is of > course far less concrete than the full blown-out description > found in RFC 6635. But the basic rule is already there. > >> What if everything else we the same, but it had been called >> the RFC Series Support Committee? And everytime someone >> thought about or volunteer for or was appointed to the >> committee they were reminded that this is about supporting >> the RFC Series? > > I don't know what the world would be like in the case of > terminological change like you propose. But I would like to > suppose that everyone involved in the IAB, at least, and > anyone I (at least) ever asked to be on the RSOC regarded > their role as making the RFC series successful. And making > the Editor's general policy cohere with the IAB's agreement is > no innovation from 6635: it's right there in 2850. It was > also in RFC 1601 and RFC 1358. I am not too sure that the > responsibility of the IAB for this issue is grounded in > anything earlier than 1358, but I'm also not sure that a > responsibility that has been repeatedly affirmed in print > since 1992 is one that we can assume is inoperative. > > Elsewhere, Mike StJohns has claimed, "This is a senior person > who really should be co-equal with the IAB and IESG." I do > not find the documented tradition that suggests this is true. > On the contrary, I can find documents stretching back to at > least 1992 (where I stopped digging) suggesting that the RSE > is in fact subordinate to the IAB. That is not to suggest the > relationship is some sort of directive-management one. In my > current job, I have plenty of colleagues who know more about > their area than I do (i.e. all of them), yet I am responsible > for their direction and in this formal sense they are > "subordinate" to me. If any of them messes up, they are not > responsible to my board: I am. Co-equal suggests that perhaps > the RSE ought to be picked by nomcom. I'm not too sure that is > desirable. > > Best regards, > > A
