Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor model

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 01:59:08 -0700

Hi Christian,

I moved the thread to the rfc-interest mailing list as that used to 
be the venue for discussions about the RFC Series.

At 09:15 AM 25-06-2019, Christian Huitema wrote:
>The other source of stress is the independent series. I do believe 
>and so many times that this streams provides useful checks and 
>balance against the IESG. It is clearly a source of tension, but 
>that tension should be assumed and managed.

Over the last decade there has been attempts to remove the 
Independent Stream from the RFC Series.  The odd part about that is 
when the person(s) arguing in favor of the removal asks for the 
publication of his/her document in that Stream.

There is a RFC which defines the procedures for handling conflict 
reviews.  The tension (if I can call it that) occurs when an IETF 
Area Director exercises his/her prerogatives  to have a document 
processed in the IETF Stream instead of the Independent Stream.

>The question then is, what is left for the RSE. The RFC Editor 
>report is all about the RPC work. What would it contain if the RSE 
>did not formally manage the RPC? Would the bulk of the RSE work 
>evaporate? I think not.

It is useful to provide a report about operations as part of 
monitoring whether things are working correctly.  There is also the 
longer term perspective.  In general, there isn't much interest in that.

>We are also handling code snippets and abstract language 
>specifications by including them in our specs. Do this code objects 
>require the same management as specification texts? What about bug fixes?

That usually comes from one of the Streams.  Did anyone ask the 
Stream's manager about that?

>We inherited a structure in which RFC  are immutable. This leads to 
>the errata process and long cycles of updates by WG processes. Is 
>that the best we can do?

The errata process and the updates in the above is related to 
standardization instead of "archival record".

>We hold the RFC series in great veneration, but we cannot answer 
>simple questions like who reads it, what is their impact. How can we 
>manage change without data about our results?

The above is probably about dissemination.

>I would like to see the RSE focus on such questions. And I think 
>removing the RPC management and the ISE tension from the role would help that.

A RSE could write a RFC to address such questions.  I suggest 
considering whether that will produce the desired outcome.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest