Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Leslie Daigle <leslie at thinkingcat.com>]

Actually:

	. since the existence of the IASA (last year),
	  the ISOC BoT has been asked to support the RFC Editor
	  as part of what IASA supports -- IETF *and* IAB (and IRTF).

	. as part of the initial proposal of 2007 budget for IASA,
	  to the ISOC BoT, on July 1, 2006, it was proposed
	  this model continue.

I.e., ISOC is asked to support IASA.

IASA supports the IAB as well as the IETF.[*]

The IAB asks for support for the RFC Editor.

The IAB has been working through this year to formalize
a proposed framework for answering the questions of "who
controls what under which circumstances".  It started with
the proposed RFC Editor charter in March.  It is now a
14 page Internet-Draft (submitted to the repository yesterday;
should be out RSN:  draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 is the current
version).

[*] This is perhaps a reasonable time to reiterate that
the IAB is, in fact, a separate entity from the IETF organization.


Leslie.



Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 7:25 PM -0400 7/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
> > And the IETF/IASA can issue an RFP for IETF
> > publications and publishing any time it likes, specifying
> > whatever conditions it likes.  _That_ is perfectly normal.  It
> > can even try to specify what other activities an entity that
> > responds to the RFP may or may not engage in.  That would likely
> > be stupid, since it would probably reduce the number of bidders
> > and increase costs, but nothing prevents "the IETF" from doing
> > so.
> >
> > What it cannot do is to assume it has the right to impose those
> > requirements on the RFC Editor and that, if the RFC Editor
> > doesn't agree, the IETF's remedies extend beyond taking its
> > publication business elsewhere.  Absent figuring out who or what
> > the term "RFC Editor" belongs to (I don't know whether it is
> > ISI, but is certainly is not the IETF unless I get to transfer
> > your name after buying you lunch), the RFP should be titled
> > something more like "... for services currently performed by the
> > RFC Editor...".
>
> John,
> 	Leaving aside all of the naming issues, I believe the point
> that is being missed is that ISOC, through this IASA process, intends
> to fund two things:  an "IETF" stream of documents and an "independent"
> stream.  It can put conditions on the "independent" stream solely because it
> will pay  for the publication of that stream.  As you point out, that has
> nothing to do with any publication work done for anyone else by the respondents;
> it simply means that for the "independent" stream paid for
> by ISOC, a particular set of processes are being put forward to ensure
> that they relate to the "IETF" stream (or don't relate to it) in particular ways.
> 	I would appreciate it if we kept that point, and what the "particular
> set of processes" should be, separate from the naming issue.  The worms
> in one can need not interbreed with the worms in the other.
> 			thanks,
> 				Ted Hardie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I continue to hope and believe that, if the RFP and award
> > process is obviously fair, in the best interests of the Internet
> > community ISI will consent to the release of any rights they
> > might have to the "RFC Editor" terminology and materials to
> > whatever entity the IASA decides to designate.   But at least
> > some of us believe that making the approval process or content
> > of RFCs that do not arise from IETF processes subsidiary to the
> > IESG would not be in the best interests of the Internet
> > community.  Were the RFP to go out with such a requirement, and
> > were USC to agree with that conclusion about the best interests
> > of the community, things could get rather strange.
> >
> > > You might also argue that even if ISOC gets some say in how
> > > the RFC-Editor function is performed as long as it is funding
> > > it, and has the right to stop funding it, ISOC (and by
> > > extension, the IETF) doesn't have the right to hire someone
> > > else to be "RFC-Editor". 
> > That is correct.
> >
> > > If I understand correctly, this is
> > > the question you don't want to put in the critical path of
> > > this RFP. Unfortunately, I think this is something that must
> > > be resolved before the process goes too far.  I'd hate to see
> > > people's decisions affected by concerns over what might happen
> > > if ISI doesn't get the contract.
> > So would I.  For just this reason, I have repeatedly tried to
> > suggest that the RFP should specify a series of functions to be
> > performed, rather than the name to be given to the entity that
> > performs it, but those suggestions haven't gone anywhere and the
> > process has probably already gone too far.
> >
> > Were that change made, I would still argue that there should be
> > an independent submission model and that ISOC (IASA, IETF) still
> > should not assert IESG control over it and should not permit
> > IESG to insert required text into independent submissions that
> > was not true and/or exceeded the IESG's knowledge and quality of
> > review.  But that discussion at least would not get tied up with
> > the concept of the RFC Editor and its role.
> >
> >   john
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAOC mailing list
> IAOC at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf