Subject: Request for input (patchwork RFCs) (fwd)

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT)

All -

This is just an up-date on my own request for input:
I've heard from a few folk on the list, and a few more
off list and the collective feedback indicates that an IAOC
approved ION would be the best way to handle the disposition
of these tasks.

We (the IAOC) will approve and issue an ION derived from the
existing draft and I'll let the draft time out.

Thanks to all who took the time to respond.

- Lucy
_________________________
llynch  @civil-tongue.net
llynch on jabber.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:39:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Request for input (patchwork RFCs)

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf