Hi. I sent in some comments a while back and they sparked a lively discussion. However I don't think I made the point I was trying to make successfully and think because of lack of clarity on my part my point came out much more controversial than I had hoped.
So, here's try #2. First, I understand there is a consensus that some rfc-editor streams are broader than the IETF and that we need to get community review broader than the IETF when making decisions about those streams. That seems fine to me; I personally think in practice it will be rare that the IETF and this broader community will disagree, but I understand the concern. I'm not trying to object to that. I caution the IAB to make sure that it does not get deadlocked trying to find out how to approach this broader community. It would be unfortunate if in an attempt to get broad review we got no review at all or review by a very small community. I think that is a real concern, but one the IAB is well equipped to handle. I also understand there is a long recorded history of interactions with the RFC editor. (There is an even longer oral tradition, but I trust that we all see the undesirability of making governance decisions about a million dollar/year organization based on oral tradition.) We need to respect that history. We also need to realize that one of the explicit goals of the adminrest process is to formalize and clarify relationships and avoid the need for us to consult this history to find out how things work. Quoting section 3.1.3 of RFC 3716: However, the very clear requirement is for clarity in the distribution of rights, responsibilities, and accountability in those relationships. The usual mechanism for documenting such clarity is in contract form. Thus, the IETF needs to have clear contractual relationships with the organizations supporting basic services, including meeting organization, secretarial services, IT services, etc. The current effort to clarify the relationship with the rfc-editor fits well within that goal. However there are two important ways in which we have already finished the process of clarifying roles and responsibilities. First, we need look only as far as RFC 2850 to find the IAB's role in managing the RFC editor: (d) RFC Series and IANA The RFC Editor executes editorial management and publication of the IETF "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent document repository of the IETF. The RFC series constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet. The IAB must approve the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor. Second, we need only look to RFC 4071 to find IASA's role in the administrative and budget aspects of the RFC editor: The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the administrative structure required to support the IETF standards process and to support the IETF's technical activities. As of the time at which this document was written, this included the work of IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF. Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them. Such support includes, as appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the work described in [RFC3716], including IETF document and data management, IETF meetings, and any operational agreements or contracts with the RFC Editor and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The IASA is also ultimately responsible for the financial activities RFC 4071 makes it clear that the IAOC is charged with preparing a budget that meets the IETF community's administrative needs; it is clear that the IASA is responsible for evaluating each function and making sure that it meets a legitimate IETF administrative need. It would be inappropriate for the IASA to fund a function that did not fill such a role. Just as the ISOC board of directors has reviewed the rfc editor function in detail to confirm that money was being spent in accordance with ISOC's charitable mission, IAOC can and should review the rfc-editor function to make sure that it is meeting the IETF's administrative needs. Why do I mention these two areas where we have already clarified roles and responsibilities? Well, I think the document does not accurately reflect these clarifications in the following ways. First, there is a duality associated with formally granting the IAB authority through a charter: that authority can be removed or changed through revision to the charter. Perhaps long ago, the IAB had a historical grant of authority because they had always worked with the rfc editor. Today, though, the IAB has a very real de-jure grant of authority through RFC 2850. This document should make it clear that the IETF, by revising that charter through the BCP process used to create the charter, may reassign the management of the rfc editor to another organization, provide limits or processes on the IAB's authority, or otherwise affect management of the rfc editor function in ways that materially influence the processes outlined in this document. Secondly, this document needs to make it clear that IASA has an obligation to review the rfc editor function to make sure that it is meeting the IETF's administrative needs. The IAB must work within this review as it has worked within the ISOC board's review in the past. Similarly, the IAOC must work within the IAB's role setting general policy for the rfc editor. The IAB's decisions to create new streams or to change existing streams in a manner that increases budget requirements are subject to the IAOC's prioritization of funding. --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf