ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Request for input (patchwork RFCs)

2007-02-16 14:40:28
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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>