On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the
IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated NONSENSE. Who is
this "we" to whom you are referring that is "paying for it"? The IETF
folks who happen to go to face-to-face meetings (which isn't nearly
everyone in the "IETF community", let alone everyone who gets to
publish RFCs) pay enough to cover meeting costs and a part of the
secretariat. So the money you are talking about is really ISOC money,
and you had better not be claiming that the RFC Editor is accountable
to ISOC's corporate sponsors.
I also notice how you quickly slip from "IETF Community" (which some
people mean to encompass the IAB, IRTF, and assorted other folks who
might have reason to publish RFCs) straight to "IETF":
In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP
placing requirements on an rfc-editor stream. We've done this with
RFC 3932 for example, and I think that was a good thing.
In effect, community consensus within the IETF should trump anything else.
Absolutely not. I strenuously object to any such attempt.
RFC 3932 was the IESG telling the RFC Editor that it was no longer
going to do technical review of non-IETF documents (something that it
should never have been doing in the first place) and the RFC Editor
and IESG officially agreeing that the IESG could put a statement of
conflict on those documents. Had the IESG tried to, for instance, say
that it could stop certain RFCs from being published, the ensuing
constitutional crisis would have been less than amusing.
The IESG (in the name of the IETF) does *not* get to control the
publication practices of the IAB, or the IRTF, or any other person or
group that happens to publish through the RFC Editor. And they
bloody-well don't get to control the RFC Editor. If you want to push
for changes to RFC 2850 which change how that works, you go right
ahead. You won't get my support.
I also have specific concerns about how this document interacts with
the IAOC and IASA.
1) The document gives the IAB the authority to terminate the
rfc-editor contract. Depending on when we do that, there may be
significant budget impacts and it may not be consistent with
ISOC's carrying out its financial responsibilities to terminate
the rfc-editor contract at an arbitrary point in time.
2) The document allows the IAB to create new streams of rfcs on its
own authority. It seems that we need ISOC and IAOC approval at
least on the budget question to do so.
The number of IETF working groups affects the budget too. But
creation of working groups (even 50 new ones) does not require ISOC
or IAOC approval. Should a point come when a decision of the IESG
significantly impacts the budget, ISOC and the IAOC will surely let
the IESG know that through its liaisons and decisions can be made at
that time how to best accommodate the situation. There is no need for
any formal requirement of approval, and in fact I would claim that
such a requirement runs counter to the whole idea of the
administrative restructuring: There is a separate entity (IASA) with
a separate oversight committee (IAOC) such that there is no undue
influence into internal processes by those who hold the purse strings.
I see no need for a formal requirement of *approval* in this case either.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf