I'm in complete agreement with Eliot (but that may be off point for
the general topic). In recent years the IETF has been struck by a
particularly virulent form of back seat driver syndrome which has not
only caused the community to believe they should second guess all
possible decisions, but unfortunately seems to have had that effect
on both the IAB and IESG as well.
Note that I'm not against the IAB and/or IESG soliciting comments on
general goals, specific issues or even whether to serve cookies at
the break, but they got selected to deal with the bulk of the day to
day issues and we should just let them.
On the specific topic of the RFC editor though, and the amount of
independence of that function, this is a battle that has been fought
repeatedly. This particular document has a number of incorrect
assumptions - particularly the one that the RFC series belongs to the IETF.
In the doc "
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor."
This is incorrect. It should read: "It is the responsibility of the
IAB to approve the appointment of an organization to act as a channel
for the publication of Internet Standards and prescribe the manner in
which such standards are approved."
E.g. the IAB can choose who publishes the ISs, but that doesn't
necessarily give the IAB control over everything that organization publishes.
The RFC series just happens to be the current (and historical)
channel for getting internet standards published. If the IAB decided
to go another direction (e.g. new organization for hire) it's unclear
the RFC name would follow the internet standards to the new organization.
The document should be re-written to take the above into account.
The RFC series is and always has been wider than just what the IETF
(IAB, IESG, IRTF etc) has in mind. It's independence from those
bodies has been key to avoid some pretty large misteps in the past
and has been key to getting the broader community involved. It's
hubris (and somewhat of a landgrab) to declare after all this time that "
Consistent with the rest of the streams, there needs to be a
community consensus document to define that [independent
submission] process. The IAB will
establish a community forum for defining a community consensus based
document to define the approval process for this stream. The IAB
will be responsible for gauging consensus on that document, as well
as providing the forum for any needed future revisions of the
document."
I believe the RFC editor continues to be well equipped to handle
independent submissions and to set their own process consistent with
the best interests of the community.
E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission
process at least with this "channel"
Mike
At 11:35 AM 5/30/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Sam,
> However there needs to be a way for a member of this
> community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support,
> and to have that proposal be adopted.
>
> I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their
> own. However the community needs the ability to either guide the IAB
> or override the IAB if there is disagreement.
>
I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the IESG I
expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community oversight comes in the
form of the NOMCOM. If you believe that oversight is not effective,
then let's discuss that instead.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf