Subject: [Rfced-future] approval path for our work

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 16:30:06 +0200

As a reminder, we wanted to have people's views on whether our document 
should update RFC 2850 or whether that should be done separately.  Those 
who spoke seemed to prefer the latter.  Brian wrote a very simple update 
to do that.  Is that what people want?

We also agreed that whatever the approval path, we should circulate our 
LC far and wide so that everyone has an opportunity to comment.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:49:35 +1200

> to do that.  Is that what people want?

If so, since it's a potential BCP, do I need to take it to gendisptach?
It expired a while ago:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter
I have an editorial update ready to go.

> LC far and wide so that everyone has an opportunity to comment.

Clearly. I feel that given what's *currently* in RFC 2850 and that the
IAB chartered this activity, we do need formal approval from the IAB
and a nod from both the Internet Society Board and the IESG.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pull+oneself+up+by+bootstraps

   Brian C

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:55:04 +0200

Hi,

> I have an editorial update ready to go.

I would think that the right approach.  If it gets hung up there, then 
we can reconsider our options.

> and a nod from both the Internet Society Board and the IESG.

Why the nod from the Internet Society Board?  They're not once mentioned 
in the draft.

Eliot

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 19:20:58 +1200

in the draft.

Maybe not,  but they used to pay for the series directly, hold the
copyrights and the contract. They still supply the money. So it would be a
courtesy at the very least.

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 09:56:58 -0400

for what its worth - the "nod" from the ISOC board relative to IETF processes was
that the ISOC board voted to "accept" IETF  processes in order for the ISOC to be able to buy 
insurance to cover IETF decisions (IAB, IESG, WG chairs etc) 

if the insurance is now bought by the LLC then maybe the ISOC board no longer needs to nod

Scott

> On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:20 AM, Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Maybe not,  but they used to pay for the series directly, hold the copyrights and the contract. They still supply the money. So it would be a courtesy at the very least.
> 
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:40:56 +1200

> if the insurance is now bought by the LLC then maybe the ISOC board no longer needs to nod

We're getting a bit off topic here, but I agree that this was the original motivation. However, personally, I feel that the IETF and the RFC Series still have a lot to thank ISOC for so at the least they deserve a heads-up. You're probably correct that a "nod" is not formally needed.

   Brian