From nobody Thu Oct 1 00:41:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076AB3A0D69 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:41:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0mDymA8wmBw for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C3AF3A0AE2 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C24nD3J2BzyVW; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:41:20 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:41:19 +0200 Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 623230879.754056-ab1287755b9bfa2aadb157c9b54910dc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> To: Adam Roach X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 07:41:27 -0000 On 2020-09-30, at 22:57, Adam Roach wrote: >=20 > it would be ill-advised to include the word "Editor" anywhere in its = description. Unfortunately, this word is indeed overloaded. (It mainly means =E2=80=9CEmacs=E2=80=9D for me :-) The word we are looking for is =E2=80=9CHerausgeber=E2=80=9D in German. My dictionary offers =E2=80=9Cpublisher=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Ceditor=E2=80= =9D. I think the perception problem can be addressed by being more explicit. =E2=80=9CThe RFC editor, publisher of the RFC series=E2=80=9D might be a = good title. Also provides continuity. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Thu Oct 1 07:38:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FD93A10F0 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E1NVUiTHHwMU for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9361E3A1167 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id y4so4853193ljk.8 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 07:38:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XV4WFkhhrRH4gZK0ROE8tNZwMdH6ohygKIqcS3vyQ6s=; b=ZkATAuK30u3f2lD75P2grE8WKG/mDqVTyaOdST9TI9cEsguK5gbtib/mHx3z9+BNUw ATkRbeGgxmrnrtCOhAB6tG1IZK/yWEwLwnBKQEXk73hnVyYvKwoA4ZkRiW4GgDlpr4jn UCyMg3Dt7u0F/cwC/sWZDLOiq67gqGvIoyBl7yjBBjkNSC0phYlEeWJUya1LmFYY0kLJ /iuGBQNm/GMc/HoWFnsf7lnbQtSCSYuyjTN0cRs7qZtZ3tR9Anr2b83mSx5ACkDfsCyz Qp23IfI53rBHqAgbbEQguCFSduVs9Pyt55bL85pFh39q1p+32yFGhDeU9WdQFStSGNpJ Jhug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XV4WFkhhrRH4gZK0ROE8tNZwMdH6ohygKIqcS3vyQ6s=; b=W98NEHFBDnSioyCicrlXgZhwGkJEzkVg16wv+8PX5nVoJsYXYN4nTC3vlBEhhO23p2 8zO7FWAepR8IRK0MRG1hUwRBCQfyHo07nQJV3AYajmSdPjoEAZcX/Jj5PD+h8JqXi7MD yk60G6gbohMpYVXrgOTWc4iCVj0BqNDdFetmyKsNPeM0VzNKcep7WkAoYlp57espxtQK tQqCqaHGjr0Pri5RWMaZYgY59PCKMwQhgRztnWp9ZU2Yu4Gq4+PKjuDk7FqKXDtqRn8r JW+6HJJGsrkL1ncMth3RCvNIft+wznzFtWieKL/ANAV96ma6Zx7LbmzC+7+2++K1q7ZX OYsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FPEf6cXvOFOo2Z0ICClSy8vqNbXVXme7BNPPGSvvoj39aWiSq GJ/cM1nFqmXNKlE5GyML7Wjh1uwqvx9ksDEGFwC+TyKMQk20bQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNnCPBHEy7fhzSce5clzUE3DEotuatkhqHJ13w1C1yqCSl648+cdFu8LIvJP20mvIAvRn1h0He2bgPgjIXsxk= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:804f:: with SMTP id p15mr2569857ljg.199.1601563091586; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 07:38:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:37:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Christian Huitema Cc: Brian Rosen , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028e8c105b09cf708" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:38:31 -0000 --00000000000028e8c105b09cf708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:08 PM Christian Huitema wrote: > > On 9/30/2020 10:40 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > > So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to > > start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn=E2=80=99t depen= d on > > other decisions. > > > > Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position > > is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties > > they have? > > rea > > a > > Please send your thoughts on this subject. We would actually > > appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if > > we have any form of consensus. > > > I am not sure that we need "a thought leader" for providing the > publication expertise. I observe that changes in the series tend to be > big steps, such as changes in formats, or changes in reference methods. > I could easily see hiring publication experts to produce an audit and > explain all the wrongness of our ways, and then have a working group > drive for consensus on solutions. That would not require having a > permanent expert position. > I am finding it hard to answer this question in the abstract, because the question of what job we want done (i.e., what duties they will have) is prior to whether we need the position. With that said, I do not think we need what I would characterize as a "thought leader" in the sense that it is their job to drive the discussion. I think it is reasonably likely that we need to engage someone to provide specialized expertise in much the same way as we engage a lawyer to provide specialized expertise, but I do not believe they should be acting in a "thought leader" position as I understand it. -Ekr -- Christian Huitema > > > I > > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --00000000000028e8c105b09cf708 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:08 PM Chris= tian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net= > wrote:
=
On 9/30/2020 10:40 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to
> start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn=E2=80=99t depe= nd on
> other decisions.
>
> Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position<= br> > is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties<= br> > they have? =C2=A0
> =C2=A0rea
> a
> Please send your thoughts on this subject.=C2=A0 We would actually
> appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if=
> we have any form of consensus.


I am not sure that we need "a thought leader" for providing the publication expertise. I observe that changes in the series tend to be
big steps, such as changes in formats, or changes in reference methods.
I could easily see hiring publication experts to produce an audit and
explain all the wrongness of our ways, and then have a working group
drive for consensus on solutions. That would not require having a
permanent expert position.

I am finding= it hard to answer this question in the abstract, because the question of w= hat job we want done (i.e., what duties they will have) is prior to whether= we need the position.

With that said, I do not th= ink we need what I would characterize as a "thought leader" in th= e sense that it is their job to drive the discussion. I think it is reasona= bly likely that we need to engage someone to provide specialized expertise = in much the same way as we engage a lawyer to provide specialized expertise= , but I do not believe they should be acting in a "thought leader"= ; position as I understand it.

-Ekr
=
-- Christian Huitema


I


--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--00000000000028e8c105b09cf708-- From nobody Thu Oct 1 10:20:13 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD6F3A116C for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3AqUalx7HTw for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703A13A1167 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:e572:4067:614f:8a05] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:e572:4067:614f:8a05]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3ABF617966; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:19:59 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1601572799; bh=lui+7YJeX3B1KAWbg05wYuN4vm4bG7JUerFRFv0z3l0=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=x/nf8Csrhn+eEVftwqCg+OtPUooQQWQmtO1QI7CySQz3jVt9EnZPJpQR8UZ4QDO7M 27PH9KGY678edOXcwUw1l8TJ2eXoJ+Wsbm1M5K5czA2BwUXyZWOcoxNkugK4b6bBJd 1/cRIgQdSTs7fGZFOIwa4hIXxD0NfyV6p+1DOQ7E= From: Lars Eggert Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D11FB8EA-0DCE-4195-ABCE-7A65580568B3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:19:58 +0300 In-Reply-To: <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> Cc: Adam Roach , rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns To: Carsten Bormann References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> X-MailScanner-ID: C3ABF617966.A4C01 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:20:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D11FB8EA-0DCE-4195-ABCE-7A65580568B3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 2020-10-1, at 10:41, Carsten Bormann wrote: > The word we are looking for is =E2=80=9CHerausgeber=E2=80=9D in = German. > My dictionary offers =E2=80=9Cpublisher=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Ceditor=E2=80= =9D. "Issuer"? Lars --Apple-Mail=_D11FB8EA-0DCE-4195-ABCE-7A65580568B3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEmpq0ZpSoejRmyhheVLXDCb9wwVcFAl92D74ACgkQVLXDCb9w wVftJw//cn4z8neqjhkvRIUrJYNKMpehh/dz7MYcSv1FW3tqV5RlkvvViYM4Dhal JLjAM8qs5aYVekVqncScFdgFRheECpyRAcECfa0S2Rc76SCXBdGn7NPrtE1WEvuN Jz39Eq7a7xQqq4Ck0ws3zSnDYXXisD7v3upVrPTaQOzvT5K9QqbldSvLQbGsC9Cj pCDIs4j65BlB/DA32EDFskWXq4MDpxHBJeCQS/FwsJoRW916tpVdEUazcgR8bynv Gj4/UM5EPmvr6ZHMyPXFrmqGQR6Deafwy5V30Xg2i0hSCdJSTu3EWwmEMJmk3raw /mZcmCJNAkesE1k3V0IiN/1GCRy1HyIh3Zg17zTUjA4XD8oHzok0geYSH5i2V9jL 3MzSw+SGOXcCF7W3y1UiWK51GKFg2qI7HZ8HaL5T86ckJvjhmqX/qSSwYFouqaD2 zmlKnJZHH5VHabbZ6uR2smglflSi3xXRokbAeP2Bj60EHjt/kaFjUCQxb8PKODvP R25x122qx1c6BWesB0Pc+7xN4UEaUxab1oVMYdP189fnnrvmLCNOllQUPYHT9UbV BLcKkCnYdcDwI1hxnQRXv2RRkpBaDW7VWQvlSUAfI3B31KIYxuKa/4urlhkQoJZ5 opNKWyoNViTJsL5zO4Y/tZr69K3ShPzbY0WC2LQgscWCiKaYjcc= =+tBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D11FB8EA-0DCE-4195-ABCE-7A65580568B3-- From nobody Thu Oct 1 10:34:16 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAABC3A117E for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:34:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEHDTDp3ur3Q for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA8833A117F for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 091HY4Mw012337; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:34:04 +0100 Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B53F2203D; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:34:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7634B2203A; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:34:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.113.82.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 091HY3so025338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:34:03 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Lars Eggert'" , "'Carsten Bormann'" Cc: , "'Adam Roach'" , "'Michael StJohns'" References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:34:02 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AQLK7I1Ov9H+78aSe8jtI3v+4KPWkAH5605xAQDaxrACiKsgEQJLjkycAYZ97mynT6vwgA== X-Originating-IP: 87.113.82.114 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25700.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.368-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--5.368-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25700.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.368000-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: QW5G6BKkLTrxIbpQ8BhdbDdfT4zyWoZSAFzp6o1bqPOvW5VplQp1r/ao fKXTuWLkn8JkVmJGUK17VHIa+WD3TQ5NNdLk2HqVW4uRcqTgBLmL/MoUdwG/+8xCv/gksg3+YhG S/W6lsHWMmLGfutd7FnHhDjUSt94qJH941Sz0o6TM1jffIgQXhkyEf8qljHK7ybDBMw03wP0eYr omkAcG82g1pdCg525TVaG0Xl3juCs+D3J+ThgLRq3SxRSke3bp6iy8pgI3go+SEJ2i2epwGvqxH PWD+2Wj585VzGMOFzDmL+Ve1nhn7O54vhk1EvsRxEHRux+uk8ifEzJ5hPndGXWCyCNQBwhO4FDk UNVEBB7buvWF8AGnPZTri3XwumTVZQeNlsbBiZuZaUzzzsdFwM/02cIbSC/RlpjDo2TBkFXAE/h D8PxNH8QqHltHU9gWh/yQr4rUA+khyumgjE26daI8pDPbYZMRVlxr1FJij9s= X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:34:15 -0000 Yeah, well, Latin edere. But so what. We run into the fact that, despite the dictionary definitions of = "editor" being spot on, the common usage/understanding is broken. "Publisher" is similarly misunderstood. And "Issuer" is pretty much a = non-word. "Distributer" implies, erm, distribution. The way this is handled in the industry is to give a qualifier with = "editor". Hence, "commissioning editor", "copy editor", "editor in = chief", "supervising editor", etc. etc. But we're not going to make it = down this path. Let's work out what the job actually is, then work out how we want the = role to be perceived, and only then let's give it a name. A -----Original Message----- From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Lars = Eggert Sent: 01 October 2020 18:20 To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org; Adam Roach ; Michael StJohns = Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for = Discussion: Thought Leader) On 2020-10-1, at 10:41, Carsten Bormann wrote: > The word we are looking for is =E2=80=9CHerausgeber=E2=80=9D in = German. > My dictionary offers =E2=80=9Cpublisher=E2=80=9D and = =E2=80=9Ceditor=E2=80=9D. "Issuer"? Lars From nobody Thu Oct 1 10:37:21 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590763A117E for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sn7xlIQfR-ip for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C79773A117D for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:37:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=383; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601573838; x=1602783438; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=srj0K9zQr96vJ2gsEczF8LN9DPHWUGKOhSAseaeIvLM=; b=kNHtKs/m/xPTZYVvLHC4XXWAc0tlpSmh2Gvoetjg1uP0jz5vK5KzqRIO quj7YayZphMgerFkRhAODsK/SDQbybhAVdnLl29ULFsUgurv4xsRQ+l5M X/FH9/3dYY+j70z+sow3f9kwgjl9z+ALMZ8LNSm1lNoqXDCmfZ8HTuXwa c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAwBUE3Zf/xbLJq1fHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+DbwEgEiyNP4ghJpwiCwEBAQ0BAS8EAQGESgKCNiY4EwI?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVyAQEBAQIBOj8FCwsYLlcZgyaCXSCqWnSBNIp?= =?us-ascii?q?WgTiNSYIAgTgMEIJNPoQ9TYJ9gi0EmmCcbIJxgxOXSwMWCYJ8AZ4er0aDXQI?= =?us-ascii?q?EBgUCFYFrI4FXMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDY5WjhI/AzA3AgYKAQEDCY5UAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,324,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30054777" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Oct 2020 17:37:14 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp6439.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp6439.cisco.com [10.61.89.38]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 091HbE9H030997 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 17:37:14 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:37:13 +0200 Cc: Lars Eggert , Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org, Adam Roach , Michael StJohns Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.89.38, ams3-vpn-dhcp6439.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:37:20 -0000 > On 1 Oct 2020, at 19:34, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > Let's work out what the job actually is, then work out how we want the = role to be perceived, and only then let's give it a name. =46rom a chair perspective, I think that sounds about right. But the = name discussion is interesting in as much as people are talking about = what the job is.= From nobody Thu Oct 1 11:04:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4866A3A11DF for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PmaWrqxYDzPu for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3AC3A11DE for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 091I4VKm000595 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:04:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1601575473; bh=JzTk5i4HXwUr254WoATdmJp/dCHSQSzgaZN+Nefof6g=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Jd44KBypphXjShdJ5D6jUrbQ8cNNvj7mEz5GhSUEbjdZii5Ak9RdSK5NQCzumR69+ 3UtcOZF69a957mxeuRicj+ANxaqXWg+aMHIu9unZP0uJmGrpS815OhuGCYBmwWGQku /siJiRSh3RMCvX1l6j3MM5evge74WIkAwg+PH5vA= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Lars Eggert'" , "'Carsten Bormann'" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, "'Michael StJohns'" References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <4e55b661-6ddf-2375-16ce-8ffc6c8f32cf@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 13:04:25 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 18:04:43 -0000 On 10/1/2020 12:34 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Let's work out what the job actually is, then work out how we want the role to be perceived, and only then let's give it a name. This would be my preference as well. /a From nobody Thu Oct 1 14:04:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8161D3A0917 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:04:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KoqVuYsVV6eJ for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0543A08FF for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id 34so4994181pgo.13 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wr5Ql53Eg6JFdbmwAps3zPoO80ZrR7O7hsWT0dXiTq8=; b=Qtb4YiFN55DtHRiBrBeOstJaxP8h5N5H6fM+cwXVPib6MV/uoqS3jckikNi21IdP4j PJUxhmyI+TuxVujJCHHlNAM1vKyFGW0RDMKO2J8PZVEkei8fNxU0GsnsDpkfP8nff4AS AVsN5TzmH7J5KVqJ/jwXu57GOrRrgW5cCVHxR93seujnCiyzY8WHEN2o/PmBDAOMmWiV 46ZbtzT6dhDh3f20dJ0dIphTR/6lg4hBmSbUqjTS7ccfHv5P0M/ILORh8GWeVKQ4ES1o JjEdHymno9D7Dobg7xIvpqh1so5ip+IexJAjYiGnw0L3Vu7GpbZ6kcCjhxazd4XfHmZu RvZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wr5Ql53Eg6JFdbmwAps3zPoO80ZrR7O7hsWT0dXiTq8=; b=jNEJo3jROORtpB9BVslSChhRL8j549WiL2dMXBi11qU+0glJ/mX3/RUtzdoAc6VQha Ez2EQPTlJkRYvTMpIJukQtEnHmovucCRY1t8nfN6yAshfnFYLZszOpvlJoEUBZZQ3dk2 +dGgdYfvHpDfFzUdjkRO2C8DnIdJ4VhHnOLpLHlX0SHpm7GDTX0j1y3TvmkU9iqgsV76 +VqN722NBIc2h+WzAh5jJ5xin/aKSiyokdhRRmYC9Rvpw2TipEeYNMICXeN+gvDU+UA4 QDI3SAPZQCIrVHUUXTOFSZK+UZ6WiFXqlTYyv/nPnWUPgcNXAZQmlK48M4mlkaeeJ6S7 RllA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uS684z71NkczaV48TCpVV0iYggjAfgQHcmiy0/YJku0Do2RKO YoI7vQcvNm230O+naRoX/hkJFPz+XzBu5Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmUWkRbhFh2plloFRhIy7jj8vPE1g1IwZ3/VZuqTN5HjWtsoBe75h5gRhgytPEheQZts38nA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1a05:: with SMTP id a5mr7973134pga.145.1601586261297; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm7085227pfa.182.2020.10.01.14.04.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:04:17 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 21:04:24 -0000 On 02-Oct-20 03:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:08 PM Christian Huitema > wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 9/30/2020 10:40 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > > So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like t= o > > start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn=E2=80=99t= depend on > > other decisions. > > > > Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the posi= tion > > is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what du= ties > > they have? =C2=A0 > > =C2=A0rea > > a > > Please send your thoughts on this subject.=C2=A0 We would actuall= y > > appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gau= ge if > > we have any form of consensus. >=20 >=20 > I am not sure that we need "a thought leader" for providing the > publication expertise. I observe that changes in the series tend to= be > big steps, such as changes in formats, or changes in reference meth= ods. > I could easily see hiring publication experts to produce an audit a= nd > explain all the wrongness of our ways, and then have a working grou= p > drive for consensus on solutions. That would not require having a > permanent expert position. >=20 >=20 > I am finding it hard to answer this question in the abstract, because t= he question of what job we want done (i.e., what duties they will have) i= s prior to whether we need the position. >=20 > With that said, I do not think we need what I would characterize as a "= thought leader" in the sense that it is their job to drive the discussion= =2E I think it is reasonably likely that we need to engage someone to pro= vide specialized expertise in much the same way as we engage a lawyer to = provide specialized expertise, but I do not believe they should be acting= in a "thought leader" position as I understand it. We could split the issue into two, if you like. - do we need a person with specialized expertise? - does that person act as a thought leader? I'd say yes to both. The first one because I saw the benefits of the prev= ious RSE's knowledge and experience in the wider world of technical publi= shing. The second one because the technical community has a very inward-l= ooking & intrinsically conservative approach to this topic, and I think w= e need an outsider to lead us into new thinking. Brian C From nobody Thu Oct 1 14:11:34 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D883A03F5 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAyY2jPtMszG for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC4D3A0924 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id x22so5805226pfo.12 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6RHEvTj3aZQZuUGzcJlD6POKsoSTTO0GfsQ9vc5Chpg=; b=iG4fSCvOfixC1i+PBPlZ7v8+j1pK4xSl7nfN9/ENWNmbbSUMoo0Tz9H61W2sqNSbhx 6MICqvSYhBF5TqxsNx5CBKG/CDJv3wxN609xWZ9KtatPyk3isMRgo4TUZspbFvsEz7qs Tknas/ARirA1vEHlyr6WRzt8/tU9gltzMeFGw999/uiUi77LWTvdNYeVV9RnXyW8WKnP j+vGVoRojCVjrCrZP/KaWxJXBxLQt5LK35nLgLvtUuAdT+gIn4ihTff/6NBmymIJhgBx 7t0K+kTCgoPYKNmEkwj95JwfupcGDB0e729PCB9UF49JHwzWHZxYK4oXxu29l7bw7TgJ LjHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6RHEvTj3aZQZuUGzcJlD6POKsoSTTO0GfsQ9vc5Chpg=; b=eWA1ocfbr50Og3r78zMz9UuRO0egkmF6pAOZRnUpvbm1elT3066HusMUlxYrPJWC+a bDRakMftpzspgDStZVJh8hj3QnADVlt9AO88huSAqMBtJGxgNMnf/Ng4RMoccPTYuwY7 X5fV6DF6rMiVGJaKiDpf9GNhTUuQe4NUDd3ePpe22TwVOGu8rP+IPRu4DDK5AAoBfJgt VQz9mtxh7WdEmIImkEUMHS/tUWwkG68AWu05mpIL83/4LDdHZn8vE96RALS0aJoSvI0G JqMOZHeRPx5RfXCHFGiigAjYtmyX+bxCoa5OaFf4Xnpt+MB8AfpW88ZxdRLelOOTpUNx k6fA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533XYUGLoB3qKF1caAh7rLHF/QvCyXFGQMP2Mk18vRD4r31xlGRK DPkSai7DaRZ7RS5ADOnvRJY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwinmJox+yeNEUBD7nOgqSg6YBM5D7rUlPDh9sR9fRkq++dyVLVZNT/cijbmSkPSr9cRhvKw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bc81:b029:d2:2988:4781 with SMTP id bb1-20020a170902bc81b02900d229884781mr8971715plb.50.1601586689937; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm790786pja.9.2020.10.01.14.11.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , adrian@olddog.co.uk Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Lars Eggert , Carsten Bormann , Adam Roach , Michael StJohns References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <97d93b2c-fa9a-c4ea-c6ba-99900d8a59fb@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:11:24 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 21:11:34 -0000 On 02-Oct-20 06:37, Eliot Lear wrote: > > >> On 1 Oct 2020, at 19:34, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >> Let's work out what the job actually is, then work out how we want the role to be perceived, and only then let's give it a name. > >>From a chair perspective, I think that sounds about right. But the name discussion is interesting in as much as people are talking about what the job is. I agree, but it's worth noting that the word "Editor" is overloaded with many shades of meaning, which is why variants such as "Copy Editor", "Technical Editor", "Managing Editor", "Editor-in-Chief", etc. exist. My choice, "Advisor", is less overloaded, I think. Brian C From nobody Thu Oct 1 19:40:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26FE3A0B23 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uKWuwhhkifHI for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E533A0B19 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id h15so36739uab.3 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 19:40:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uo5RYkim1F9G3m6KILwQKXf4ReaSHwsRq+aEqOZv/1M=; b=hDLA2Dp4WlU8mY5nktq8rtnktMoSSUPkIGcQexwlVOLH+V5oZMmLG1ydCQok/sfTmI nCOhqmYZgTBEQ8Plre/UU9qdAzKAn/lMUqS8DNIxJxwC15yZxXizRI5RqzPaYdJ2aIec ByVpyYVDbtbcsN5T75zUN5HvXVUiVBLBMZHVH6VEF3BSKlp2NYM5xZmoHHYeYblLVtSJ AskvKpBi6SQj+nlUoocUNJ/T193Nt46R5nor/VDiix3lrm7aMqCEFls1Bs4m9inq8mnl FRGMg2O+YdhYUVu9/Xh31s8Q1miTJlZuAtj7Gth39y8swtOEKaGHRDYKnE6SjOU9BQAT We3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=uo5RYkim1F9G3m6KILwQKXf4ReaSHwsRq+aEqOZv/1M=; b=kamXmo8qPabCGdTjfaj1ZMfUVNyM6+o1rlyxgbUx6QHpuioEQAo7g4J9zvG7uZUbKX KI3wbxXf19Fem8dttbcKBCTOTAC2OaFSFiYsn0KZIYfgO5dEuqNeWrqZ8+HG7PSgyb64 UWzyMD3oS41c9g9/stAbty9FxcvnoRpXINYOdgqRexDgYJxw8BjWaJQTbWVivVvOFcjz VjrOlAzv00oQ0aKXZCISQ9swDSbIjwM344IIe8Nz1ED22zOCL60hYrJnWVoLp7y9MIrF ZikHNBUk+oKOOL4K5JssB2Oy+A1R7/BCSdYbZCh1QQ9o7Y1D5QdNEb/QgRFeXuSngQry mKcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5329yiLL0kvlGNdjBe8Nmn51h30+Tv7twWmC4TX1BsQ097iWLpjG 7M9QuNTEGcsFLqlJT4ecZYgyI41UboMfeoTSO9EjONvFTgs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrRKp/Ca3hki0IS032efgdGwyFKYbIG9o0dUbHnduTF6HQrr64S6vyRCHcQN1eUKG71wMiwfBVnWUfvoOuvTc= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2984:: with SMTP id s4mr6294uas.109.1601606413795; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 19:40:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <9DAE51C2-4355-4601-AC83-E3EBAC27F073@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9DAE51C2-4355-4601-AC83-E3EBAC27F073@cisco.com> From: Nevil Brownlee Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:39:47 +1300 Message-ID: To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d4b4e05b0a70d25" Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Fwd: Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 02:40:17 -0000 --0000000000005d4b4e05b0a70d25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all: For the last few weeks I've been thinking about what our RSE actually does. First, some history ... RFC 8729 "The RFC Series and the RFC Editor" spells it all out, in nice detail. rfced-future (8729 was published in the IAB Stream, since IAB had oversight of the RFC Series). Here are the most important parts of 8720: Section 1: History "the IAB supports a future for the RFC Series that continues to meet its original mandate of providing the archival series for the technical research and engineering documentation that describes the Internet." Section 2: RFC Series Mission "The RFC Series is the archival series dedicated to documenting Internet technical specifications, including general contributions from the Internet research and engineering community as well as standards documents. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Internet." Section 3: RFC Editor "The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving RFCs." This last paragraph states that the RSE is expected to be "the prime mover for 'development of the series' (my paraphrase of that sentence)." It details exactly what Heather did for the changes to RFC's publication format and the tools for preparing draft RFCs - so I'm puzzled as to why some postings to the list have proposed changing it. As for the name of the position, the RFC Series is - in publishing terms - a Serial Publication, i.e. RFCs are published at irregular intervals, but in a clearly identified sequence. The title "Series Editor" seems entirely appropriate to me. Cheers, Nevil On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:00 PM Eliot Lear wrote: > Adam, Adrian, Mike, > > I=E2=80=99ve opened Issue 24 on how the role is named. I would suggest t= hat it is > a good lead in to discussing what the job actually is (Issue 11), so plea= se > don=E2=80=99t stop discussion. > > Eliot > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --=20 ----------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ --0000000000005d4b4e05b0a70d25 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all:
For the last few weeks I've be= en thinking about what our RSE actually does.=C2=A0 First, some history ...=

RFC 8729 "The RFC Series and the RFC Editor&= quot; spells it all out, in nice detail. rfced-future
(8729 was published in the IAB Stream, since IAB had oversight = of the RFC Series).=C2=A0 Here are the most important parts of 8720:
Sec= tion 1: =C2=A0History
=C2=A0 "the IAB supports a future for the RFC= Series that continues to meet its
=C2=A0 =C2=A0original mandate of prov= iding the archival series for the technical
=C2=A0 =C2=A0research and en= gineering documentation that describes the Internet."
Section 2: = =C2=A0RFC Series Mission
=C2=A0=C2=A0 "The RFC Series is the archiv= al series dedicated to documenting
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Internet technical speci= fications, including general contributions
=C2=A0 =C2=A0from the Interne= t research and engineering community as well as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0standards d= ocuments.
=C2=A0RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the Inte= rnet."
Section 3: RFC Editor
=C2=A0 "The RFC Editor is an e= xpert technical editor and series editor,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0acting to support= the mission of the RFC Series.=C2=A0 As such, the RFC
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Edit= or is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes.=C2=A0 In additi= on,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime m= over in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions about policies for editing, publishing,= and archiving
=C2=A0 =C2=A0RFCs."

This la= st paragraph states that the RSE is expected to be "the prime mover fo= r 'development of the series' (my paraphrase of that sentence).&quo= t;=C2=A0 It details exactly what Heather did for the changes to RFC's p= ublication format and the tools for preparing draft RFCs - so I'm puzzl= ed as to why some postings to the list have proposed changing it.

As for the name of the position, the RFC Series is - in pub= lishing terms - a Serial Publication, i.e. RFCs are published at irregular = intervals, but in a clearly identified sequence.=C2=A0 The title "Seri= es Editor" seems entirely appropriate to me.

= Cheers, Nevil


=
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:00 PM Eliot = Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@d= marc.ietf.org> wrote:
Adam, Adrian, Mike,

I=E2=80=99ve opened Issue 24 on how the role is named.=C2=A0 I would sugges= t that it is a good lead in to discussing what the job actually is (Issue 1= 1), so please don=E2=80=99t stop discussion.

Eliot

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future


--
-----------------------------------
Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ
--0000000000005d4b4e05b0a70d25-- From nobody Thu Oct 1 19:43:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517C63A0B23 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXAZmKv3b9M4 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D20D3A0B19 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 19:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0922gwn5079333 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 21:43:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1601606582; bh=kBLdCFJ+DbPmjA7tvRD/T28bozEz7vGj95pMG24gKMY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ZQCS2nxRBdjX5bKv0SXF90PdV4CxgKMChqbrn5EIPzkZmE6gA3f+/esUGqikk/Yuv 2O4ij4gH2zOI3kXXT+gtNimN0c8v4rdn0HSihAjUyK9fGGNYKUbA2McBAFOsfGiu+T XLeMIfQJIU5JKyVDai+GPS3W7ih+bIOAN+LGRCyM= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: Brian E Carpenter , Eliot Lear , adrian@olddog.co.uk Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Lars Eggert , Carsten Bormann , Michael StJohns References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> <97d93b2c-fa9a-c4ea-c6ba-99900d8a59fb@gmail.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 21:42:52 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <97d93b2c-fa9a-c4ea-c6ba-99900d8a59fb@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 02:43:04 -0000 On 10/1/2020 4:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I agree, but it's worth noting that the word "Editor" is overloaded with many shades of meaning, which is why variants such as "Copy Editor", "Technical Editor", "Managing Editor", "Editor-in-Chief", etc. exist. My choice, "Advisor", is less overloaded, I think. I like this term, too, but I think it's because you and I have a reasonably similar vision for what this person should do. I'm very comfortable with "RFC Series Advisor" as both a concept and a title, but I suspect that is in large part due to the fact that I think the role should be advisory in nature. /a From nobody Thu Oct 1 20:02:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDCA3A0C6D for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hUtOpJmWpQ5y for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3BA3A0CE0 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 09231cEh085893 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:01:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1601607700; bh=t7l6H/NNeIOPGFCqjaIlNWyhm2qj+sKWh5mF/2irZO8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=a3D7bBpHtasC9g+bRpgp9PhGgC6clx+ILrrxf7+WqBNi0yqGyWvjLnWoVcDX8vs2e D2gSmzuSNlDJvdzZ5QKQBvXN5w3G+atVK8cYcaL4zHTmgyJ+ZTbYFhuqNhgFUlVhi3 EqQ1y4wwqTn1HVvHC2SbVHtV2RfXCPDrRIAEC0jY= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48] To: Nevil Brownlee , rfced-future@iab.org References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <9DAE51C2-4355-4601-AC83-E3EBAC27F073@cisco.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <9d731ced-0b02-6445-323c-71d61e7f481e@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 22:01:32 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 03:02:04 -0000 On 10/1/2020 9:39 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote: > As for the name of the position, the RFC Series is - in publishing > terms - a Serial Publication, i.e. RFCs are published at irregular > intervals, but in a clearly identified sequence. The title "Series > Editor" seems entirely appropriate to me. I don't think this explanation is very responsive to the very real confusion among the IETF community about the role that the RSE has historically served. It seems very much in line with "you are technically correct" without any thought to second- and third-order effects of selecting a title with "editor" in its name, like the ones I cited up-thread. /a From nobody Fri Oct 2 05:43:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E943A0F99 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:43:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0th4h9m0u6Yp for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6611A3A0EF9 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kOKOm-000N5x-2K; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 08:42:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 08:42:50 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: adrian@olddog.co.uk cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> References: <04e901d69766$88e6be10$9ab43a30$@olddog.co.uk> <2a675967-1674-8d31-5912-8042592b622a@nthpermutation.com> <896E4BFA-9762-400C-A2B6-6B60AD55325E@tzi.org> <062501d69819$0e717810$2b546830$@olddog.co.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Naming the role (was Re: First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 12:43:08 -0000 --On Thursday, October 1, 2020 18:34 +0100 Adrian Farrel wrote: > Yeah, well, Latin edere. But so what. > > We run into the fact that, despite the dictionary definitions > of "editor" being spot on, the common usage/understanding is > broken. > > "Publisher" is similarly misunderstood. And "Issuer" is pretty > much a non-word. > > "Distributer" implies, erm, distribution. > > The way this is handled in the industry is to give a qualifier > with "editor". Hence, "commissioning editor", "copy editor", > "editor in chief", "supervising editor", etc. etc. But we're > not going to make it down this path. Or, to look at that path from a different angle, to talk about "RFC Series Editor" rather than "RFC Editor". Hmm. Been there. > Let's work out what the job actually is, then work out how we > want the role to be perceived, and only then let's give it a > name. Concur and I think this illustrates why, noting... --On Friday, October 2, 2020 10:11 +1300 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I agree, but it's worth noting that the word "Editor" is > overloaded with many shades of meaning, which is why variants > such as "Copy Editor", "Technical Editor", "Managing Editor", > "Editor-in-Chief", etc. exist. My choice, "Advisor", is less > overloaded, I think. In "normal" publishing industry terminology "Managing Editor" is usually actually close to what we are talking about. But, if our community doesn't understand that or understands it to mean something else, knowing what the publishing industry thinks doesn't help except possibly in recruiting. And the problem with "Advisor" (perhaps especially in our community) is that it may imply a role in which advice is given but often ignored _and_ one that is often held by many people at the same time, e.g. consider it as a synonym for "Member of the Advisory Committee" and how that might be interpreted relative to "Member of the Supervisory Committee" or "Member of the Oversight Committee" [1]. That interpretation of "Advisor" is likely to be a recruiting disaster. Again, let's figure out the role and then see what would be a nearest match. If we cannot, I suggest "RFC Series Grand Pooh-bah" or "RFC Series Ring Lord". :-( john [1] These suggest "Series Supervisor" or "Series Overseer" but I don't think we want to go there either. From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:07:50 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530433A11EC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cms7Baba9U9R for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712D83A118C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2607; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601658466; x=1602868066; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=aEF/GqZykxNFTMvJ8qw467MBJdDbNEyiIR+/dmLQCfs=; b=XVXiS8AtiqOh/J4sweTM5xRxY3u9sA0/VX/IbOrZQ2uBEEbq6XyLIr6N SxoHTWgKFZNdrSkLKbSHVeQvNVvSHgiRUoZXzRY1NfTI7BKBp+tSZHYqM ZOHnKUcKvG5stz/XcB1a99PCyFosn0zHyocfuvbZd7fDAdGPOX3FjLIDK M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BGBQCgXXdf/xbLJq1gHgEBCxIMhDm?= =?us-ascii?q?BRQEgEoRpiQKIDpQvhjCBaQsBAQENAQEvBAEBhEUDgjsmOBMCAwEBCwEBBQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBBgRthWiGHHUBPQKEGIJ9ml2OEHaBMoVUhHiBOI1JggCBOAwQhw6BB4J?= =?us-ascii?q?KM4ItBLdOgnEEgw+XTgMfgw6KApQNkg0MnTCDXgIEBgUCFYFrI4FXMxoIGxU?= =?us-ascii?q?aSwGCPz0SGQ2OKxeOJj8DZwIGAQkBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,328,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30072538" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Oct 2020 17:07:42 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com [10.61.109.233]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 092H7fS1020278 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:07:42 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5201DEDA-C675-41D6-B555-98B40A5E821E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:07:41 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.109.233, dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Moving on from Issue 10 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:07:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5201DEDA-C675-41D6-B555-98B40A5E821E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear colleagues Thus far on this issue, there doesn=E2=80=99t seem to be strong = objection to the notion that we have a =E2=80=9Cfigurehead or thought = leader=E2=80=9D of some kind. We have a number of people who simply = said, =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D, one person who said, =E2=80=9Cno need=E2=80=9D= , and two who really want to see what comes next. My suggestion is that = we do just that, unless people have strong objections. Specifically not = yet agreed: what the title of the person is, and for that matter, = anything else about this person. Unless people have strong objections, = we=E2=80=99d like to say that there is sufficient consensus to move on, = and see how far we can get. Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate = messages. Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of course = if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so. Eliot & Brian= --Apple-Mail=_5201DEDA-C675-41D6-B555-98B40A5E821E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dear = colleagues

Thus far on this issue, there = doesn=E2=80=99t seem to be strong objection to the notion that we have a = =E2=80=9Cfigurehead or thought leader=E2=80=9D of some kind.  We = have a number of people who simply said, =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D, one = person who said, =E2=80=9Cno need=E2=80=9D, and two who really want to = see what comes next.  My suggestion is that we do just that, unless = people have strong objections.  Specifically not yet = agreed: what the title of the person is, and for that matter, anything = else about this person.  Unless people have strong objections, = we=E2=80=99d like to say that there is sufficient consensus to move on, = and see how far we can get.

Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in = separate messages.  Please respond in thread so we can keep track, = but of course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to = do so.

Eliot & = Brian
= --Apple-Mail=_5201DEDA-C675-41D6-B555-98B40A5E821E-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:12:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F0B3A16A5 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ox8T7fyRFP10 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E4043A1698 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:12:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=69; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601658724; x=1602868324; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject: message-id:date:to; bh=S6qTkVitAzFOu5Ha31oUaafkD0TvLFa4w+nOlbBfCLs=; b=PNYyPGn9z9n7atOsNNe1nZs+LxudTE0uK/q9UGLVRijpmGT9qIY+T7w2 5f8pvMaLC6oCfpRnz8MNhK0ezbPta6XYoVUoSHWMIhXLww7pQqsuNxF21 mIjtlYsMgPQteKzNyzRBgtqrOoHBNjrcsO5tSvm+1lPTrAIi9Q16Hutaj 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BmDgAVX3df/xbLJq1gHgEBCxIMQIF?= =?us-ascii?q?RgiiBRQEgEo1rolyBfAsBAQENAQEvBAEBhECCQyY6BA0CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBgRthWiGMzGFBYJ9mmSOEHSBNIVUhH2BOIgvhRqCAIE4HIMLhQqCfYItBJt?= =?us-ascii?q?7m1OCcYMTl04DH4J8ARGKApQNr0mDXgIEBgUCFYFtASCBVzMaCBsVOyoBgj8?= =?us-ascii?q?9EhkNjisXjiY/A2cCBgoBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,328,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30074991" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Oct 2020 17:11:46 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com [10.61.109.233]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 092HBj66003645 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:11:46 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:11:45 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.109.233, dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:12:09 -0000 This is the next issue in our list. Please state views. Eliot From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:13:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456393A11F3 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id djmjGfzWJszz for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF94A3A11EC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:13:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=281; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601658807; x=1602868407; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject: message-id:date:to; bh=JWfefI+bO6Xo8MD5QpwvZTXiFm/wuOCcScsLGZTSSEs=; b=HlN7Ogi4ZU6ScrFxwglnt1spD9lBO/9P62OWt4zpmyrWsPCqi3+7CuFT OmMMNuovQEkH3gj8MM6q8bGt4XU4rv29GjdHvgmr2yZlZCS0rev/JYjz3 1qS2v7PWTZ3sBAPstKxow+u2Mk5RKmDa0jVuVi6PooxITTpsHCVc/kLk9 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C2BwCTXndf/xbLJq1ggQmBUYIogUU?= =?us-ascii?q?BIBKNa4gQnEgLAQEBDQEBLwQBAYcDJjkFDQIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIY?= =?us-ascii?q?zMYUFgn2aW44QdIE0hVSEfIE4jUmCAIE4DBCDC4UKgn2CLQS3ToJxgxOXTgM?= =?us-ascii?q?fgnwBEYoClA2vSYNeAgQGBQIVgWwigVczGggbFWUBgj89EhkNnGg/A2cCBgo?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,328,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30013254" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Oct 2020 17:13:22 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com [10.61.109.233]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 092HDM3v021294 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:13:22 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:13:22 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.109.233, dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:13:28 -0000 Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that he = is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel pointed = out that he is less comfortable with that notion and more comfortable = with a managerial function. Please feel free to discuss. From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:23:48 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACE63A11EF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wf2PvYWHD51F for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC283A11EC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12897; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601659424; x=1602869024; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=RulB/c+9PeOZYj88gGH5j4K2sz+b8UZNkgvayfLbPFs=; b=bf0ewVwla5SZXjc8qzbMChQ5T5Ot3XhV7RDYNJQZXlCwhw41sEvlNvP3 /Mk4RkZVZ053b0nDD3gOhU9lktfihii1Tja5fTGEp1uB+W8RhLU1sVjsE KQdeut+jKtfwwsL+oNvk5Sbrvq9aAUsUJfDdQM82l7SOvfF1hcuMegn6r s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DXBADWYHdf/xbLJq1gg3uBB3BVASA?= =?us-ascii?q?ShGmJApxAhjCBaQsBAQENAQEjDAQBAYcDJjgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYV?= =?us-ascii?q?cDIYcS2gChBgBgnwPmmGOEHaBMoQ/AoEThHoGgTiNSYIAgREnHIVnAQEDgSK?= =?us-ascii?q?DUTOCLQS3ToJxgxOFa4ZYiwsDH6EdngGRSINeAgQGBQIVgWsjgVczGggbFTs?= =?us-ascii?q?qAYI/PRIZDZckhUEDPwNnAgYBCQEBAwmOSAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,328,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30013448" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Oct 2020 17:23:40 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com [10.61.109.233]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 092HNd9D023220 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:23:39 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C8EFD84E-D4F0-4D00-9F56-6B571BD7E7E9" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:23:39 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.109.233, dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:23:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C8EFD84E-D4F0-4D00-9F56-6B571BD7E7E9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Colleagues, Probably the last message of the day for me. As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used = for chair selection and escalation. The chairs propose to send the = following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees. = Could you provide any comments you think appropriate? While this issue = may not be a =E2=80=9Cprimary=E2=80=9D one, because it may take some = time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out = the door. The BoT only has one more meeting this year listed on the = web site. =20 The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor toward = or against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide you = information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the job. = It will then be up to you to decide how to proceed=E2=80=A6 as it is = now. Questions for your consideration now: Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we think = we would be asking of the BoT? Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed? Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison? Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions? Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday? Have a good weekend, all. Brian & Eliot =E2=80=94=E2=80=94 Dear Trustees, The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us = about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC = Series future.[1] In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select = and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor = to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series = Advisor). It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the = terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Another = proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities. In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would = appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be = in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program = prefer that option. =20 Among other things, the chairs=E2=80=99 responsibility and authority = include convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging = consensus on questions, and whether any documents within the group are = ready to advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to = those of IETF working group chairs. In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees to review = relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some = understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people = you would view as qualified. One should anticipate this process being = invoked every several years, based on chair performance and = availability. To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to = review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program = mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in = which decisions were made or declared. One would hope that this would = be a rare occurrence. At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this = matter. The program will take any views you might have on this matter = into consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals. Thank you for your time and consideration. On behalf of the program, Eliot Lear Brian Rosen [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 = = --Apple-Mail=_C8EFD84E-D4F0-4D00-9F56-6B571BD7E7E9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Colleagues,

Probably the last message of the day for me.

As you = know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used for = chair selection and escalation.  The chairs propose to send the = following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees. =  Could you provide any comments you think appropriate?  While = this issue may not be a =E2=80=9Cprimary=E2=80=9D one, because it may = take some time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get = this out the door.  The BoT only has one more meeting this year =  listed on the web site.  

The purpose of the proposed liaison is = not to indicate any favor toward or against using ISOC as discussed = below, but simply to provide you information about whether the BoT would = be willing to take on the job.  It will then be up to you to decide = how to proceed=E2=80=A6 as it is now.

Questions for your consideration = now:

  1. Do the responsibilities discussed = below accurately reflect what we think we would be asking of the = BoT?
  2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be = discussed?
  3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of = this proposed liaison?
  4. Should we ask the IAB or = anyone else these questions?

Could you kindly provide = your views by next Friday?

Have a good weekend, all.

Brian & Eliot

=E2=80=94<snip>=E2=80=94

Dear = Trustees,

The RFC Future = Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us about having the = ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC Series = future.[1]  In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select = and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor = to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series = Advisor).  It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the = terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Another = proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities.

In order for us to = proceed with discussion about this topic, we would appreciate the views = of the BoT about whether you believe you would be in a position to take = on these responsibilities, should the program prefer that = option.  

Among other things, = the chairs=E2=80=99 responsibility and authority include convening = meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus on = questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to = advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of = IETF working group chairs.

In order to choose good chairs, we would expect = trustees to review relevant RFCs that = specify chair qualifications, and to = have both some understanding of the role and a process by which you = could find people you would view as qualified.  One should = anticipate this process being invoked every several years, based on = chair performance and availability.

To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be = able to review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the = program mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any = sessions in which decisions were made or declared.  One would hope = that this would be a rare occurrence.

At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program = on this matter.  The program will take any views you might have on = this matter into consideration as we proceed with further development of = proposals.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

On behalf of the = program,

Eliot = Lear
Brian = Rosen

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00<= /div>
= --Apple-Mail=_C8EFD84E-D4F0-4D00-9F56-6B571BD7E7E9-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:24:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802BC3A11EF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:24:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pB7HpZVEARZW for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC903A11EC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id n10so1901150qtv.3 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:24:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=XIS6HCLWuheToBdEEPPBfMltq9lTy52qJ7zbq2qgjSM=; b=KnrXRj6sVVdNlE6VNHkBE73LGxbPqCuppxVyQ8FWwKFojvdt4IozKvAuj4j2yYsbof tP9IvzZ49cOLFiJD2q8eK+kMstGTrk/XvVxoNIsxOzQ8x+6SDl9lFV/Nboaww/Y09vdt yE1ZsQmk/zxNHUEA2BW9wr/1umrEIWvhqEcI8hKEIkNkyzgmJ6EGMkecbb0FH1BrV4Hi 8sl6rVOc/OIB2pmzKrE0Gj5PjXeu2GGfAep9cNuSjHVLi2pgiZiGR0WMPRAEbOHCn28I 7/UqRjpxMaSOc6dsD2IVcLtT69Y1das0Yqqx2FvR1RLCOzf7ijrCGDUtA1wnsr2tXBXq mLaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=XIS6HCLWuheToBdEEPPBfMltq9lTy52qJ7zbq2qgjSM=; b=tAipGYBLT26Cc1fQ0jmZRmHb9Ui0OhhNrrTPJ1RBQ64M6iLwzYc7cH/1p1vqcJs+Ep BfZYDKlGT13sdXZPpleWm4Zh71pQzcvnEDuGOMXyWxzxcAZYXli2AGiMQ6VhrcKAEWX+ dQdbVC11v/3TqGEYVd3oFTylfqDGdchMwMD49rcsvPF94PysppK+NyT1TV+su5DAE0CS Ee7absQI5freTIabpWAkXnKggINuphaNFfLnppKPDlZRcq6TojTDf3p/0kvXLlOUxWlS AYaiR1e1KfegzvW8bjXuOxDk95TATB7WEM2g8/ceHzTSUCKOTsRsJRjLiSaZsGveMk0g MbXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531P2SzTOrX0EfmonzzXh9303Op55FkxJpCoYTsJkitNb3gLJD0l pETeATovGJK98iVqOSFMvk6CI18TICsraL0S0vc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwiiaCYPsvSlWqRuFY0AaNTc5nyP1F7C4fQHp9fFBparOiTYoXS6CKOsDHphygCHtt0YHs/ng== X-Received: by 2002:aed:3162:: with SMTP id 89mr3215088qtg.315.1601659492306; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r64sm1463422qkf.119.2020.10.02.10.24.51 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:24:51 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <98e0c2b7-225a-5268-d262-93aace242840@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:24:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BA76C11986068E17189BA426" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Moving on from Issue 10 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:24:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------BA76C11986068E17189BA426 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/2/2020 1:07 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Thus far on this issue, there doesn’t seem to be strong objection to > the notion that we have a “figurehead or thought leader” of some kind. >  We have a number of people who simply said, “yes”, one person who > said, “no need”, and two who really want to see what comes next.  My > suggestion is that we do just that, unless people have strong > objections. *Specifically not yet agreed: what the title of the person > is, and for that matter, anything else about this person.*  Unless > people have strong objections, we’d like to say that there is > sufficient consensus to move on, and see how far we can get. > > Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate > messages.  Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of > course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so. > > Eliot & Brian > I see I missed the period where we got to discuss the what the next set of issues would be.   In any event, let me bring forward the "current" definition: * The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. * As such, the RFC Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. * In addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving RFCs. I would suggest we first start with these.  Indicate "This applies to or describes the job" or "This no longer applies to or describes the job" along with the reasons why or why not. This encompasses your issue 11, but I think we need to defer issue 12 until the latter two item above are resolved. Later, Mike --------------BA76C11986068E17189BA426 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/2/2020 1:07 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Dear colleagues

Thus far on this issue, there doesn’t seem to be strong objection to the notion that we have a “figurehead or thought leader” of some kind.  We have a number of people who simply said, “yes”, one person who said, “no need”, and two who really want to see what comes next.  My suggestion is that we do just that, unless people have strong objections.  Specifically not yet agreed: what the title of the person is, and for that matter, anything else about this person.  Unless people have strong objections, we’d like to say that there is sufficient consensus to move on, and see how far we can get.

Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate messages.  Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so.

Eliot & Brian


I see I missed the period where we got to discuss the what the next set of issues would be.   In any event, let me bring forward the "current" definition:

  • The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. 
  • As such, the RFC Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. 
  • In addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving RFCs.

I would suggest we first start with these.  Indicate "This applies to or describes the job" or "This no longer applies to or describes the job" along with the reasons why or why not.  

This encompasses your issue 11, but I think we need to defer issue 12 until the latter two item above are resolved.

Later, Mike


--------------BA76C11986068E17189BA426-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:25:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB3A3A16AC for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:25:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id myION4DUWUTP for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E3243A169D for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id d20so2165591qka.5 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=nP9HRgjFJb+CFC1a+08RhY6i8KShnu7M1w3ysWEVl6U=; b=Tcr6XT3M1wh/bS1AfFOmvmDPVSdt+HX6kzhEzpgT0HVCSAfPwIo8FQR2Kny/V8Xhfy WpGTY4wMsGmsdlzTE7ObQG5KoQvG7ue4Y93IpLuyuz5GyKvFcjGUJlKeZ4Ka/BLpVu7W GkV1k8TABZg3np2kNkhf3sVM9hnjAQ87LY6VWu/uGZfj/Dhwey4fcLX2HA7imKeLm7C+ M4Z2CH2SWotVsVB8aQJODBN41OJFWHkPVxzaQB356rdK9+yl/K01XcrQgJQLZyS0MJvw JZ+KCs/FAGzHvjOojFpXVnEJbLRxgjymcK2fKcRdpKuq+bLxzDJ2MnzqgCwAtfaua/si eWqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=nP9HRgjFJb+CFC1a+08RhY6i8KShnu7M1w3ysWEVl6U=; b=RHBCF4bbxpHbzMAEVHl4P4h3l6+n2JtZTZCByNXAdTwy/SNxVEKEbXVSPb9LhRkhmz RbhAPnoX85Q0GSIHLk32TkQpMpB8Z/QCWzXrdQyje/Wz7qkap/p6NcAravmGX2ud3HxV XANlcebBWrg99L0dQ40+R3SP2LOwg7RQ/8QP48iEbFdm1xktTz3hsboIYXMJFkhLQ/tA 5BQu8nDbaWDSK9W54+4Zv44uhRlgpL/ntd7DrrHoZt9H7mJ1J4t1n2K6eSrr9dBSAGlw qJvzRUruSdcsbBKrIDvJ3X7HRKa66s17XcgtfuH6GpKYmUmHAtxl0Nn4e0bgqiC7q4bl IWxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530U3GbVg8SWg37tSokWzQz87+XD6RA+WAEdDHbSzC9ATj+CE0wW Wfr4OkdQRtrRCGMNNCcVDNu3R61f+7GnBda1nCc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFzDKPRpIkIuh/IAlogCDnYow9hP9N2EEyJoAhAtk0KYmMkF2dAy+EPBcAJuMxqB3RQUzDiA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1107:: with SMTP id o7mr3058433qkk.191.1601659526039; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b13sm1489047qkl.46.2020.10.02.10.25.25 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:25:25 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <0e938f45-31d2-b60b-8020-29edf7ba5401@nthpermutation.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:25:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------298F8175A6A015FC7544008A" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:25:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------298F8175A6A015FC7544008A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Way way way too early for this. On 10/2/2020 1:23 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Colleagues, > > Probably the last message of the day for me. > > As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be > used for chair selection and escalation.  The chairs propose to send > the following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of > Trustees.  Could you provide any comments you think appropriate? >  While this issue may not be a “primary” one, because it may take some > time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out > the door.  The BoT only has one more meeting this year  listed on the > web site. > > The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor > toward or against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide > you information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the > job.  It will then be up to you to decide how to proceed… as it is now. > > Questions for your consideration now: > > 1. Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we > think we would be asking of the BoT? > 2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed? > 3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison? > 4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions? > > > Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday? > > Have a good weekend, all. > > Brian & Eliot > > —— > > Dear Trustees, > > The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us > about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC > Series future.[1]  In particular, the proposal would have the BoT > select and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the > successor to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC > Series Advisor).  It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as > the terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. > Another proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities. > > In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would > appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be > in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program > prefer that option. > Among other things, the chairs’ responsibility and authority include > convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus > on questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to > advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of > IETF working group chairs. > > In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees to review > relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some > understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people > you would view as qualified.  One should anticipate this process being > invoked every several years, based on chair performance and availability. > > To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to > review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program > mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in > which decisions were made or declared.  One would hope that this would > be a rare occurrence. > > At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this > matter.  The program will take any views you might have on this matter > into consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals. > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > On behalf of the program, > > Eliot Lear > Brian Rosen > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 > --------------298F8175A6A015FC7544008A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Way way way too early for this.


On 10/2/2020 1:23 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Colleagues,

Probably the last message of the day for me.

As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used for chair selection and escalation.  The chairs propose to send the following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees.  Could you provide any comments you think appropriate?  While this issue may not be a “primary” one, because it may take some time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out the door.  The BoT only has one more meeting this year  listed on the web site.  

The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor toward or against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide you information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the job.  It will then be up to you to decide how to proceed… as it is now.

Questions for your consideration now:

  1. Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we think we would be asking of the BoT?
  2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed?
  3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison?
  4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions?

Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday?

Have a good weekend, all.

Brian & Eliot

—<snip>—

Dear Trustees,

The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC Series future.[1]  In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series Advisor).  It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Another proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities.

In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program prefer that option.  
Among other things, the chairs’ responsibility and authority include convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus on questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of IETF working group chairs.

In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees to review relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people you would view as qualified.  One should anticipate this process being invoked every several years, based on chair performance and availability.

To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in which decisions were made or declared.  One would hope that this would be a rare occurrence.

At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this matter.  The program will take any views you might have on this matter into consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

On behalf of the program,

Eliot Lear
Brian Rosen



--------------298F8175A6A015FC7544008A-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:26:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8698D3A11EF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:26:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7LbKwzDYml2X for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62CBD3A1144 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id v23so1829363ljd.1 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:26:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dshK/pFqLn4MRcFw7HUTlS+nHdgCjx2I1x62juLzjkc=; b=RS+v41m0xRPFLdwqlbIz4/KRwG9MWI4k2wbJqvVxp44Xob8VkLsyNbiaKz86qRMMQB x2ZZ4DFjv/qS9OlbUP/+cmiq+3S9JbBnBaS0Xh/NnrO6GRMevQXiXT6z7WtPyRVG8bQy IjZ4KkNe2GqpWDQGzbZDEPUB5Zb5i3V4qyUKq2R4wgMbrjXfHNLXZsllHMiH0JUnc/DV i0wMHn14FXppEoqLX95kqvyAdeukEy8wHhkfEDq95E3FV3iuX7/B6m5qy/in+2I/gRX6 Fc8qrQB142NkXu3wEKqv0dzN0TN49JgpJTTeZm0wCB3oNG/gbQG4sjfNwlJE02IZUfRl 9B9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dshK/pFqLn4MRcFw7HUTlS+nHdgCjx2I1x62juLzjkc=; b=fnYE9DQcnJpRFMbBWb2A1QzEwwb8J4yZJab/xpZD3MGvYHL66YSLX9UjtA48fJQNuh 58MeiwZIClRUWoVkBQchBr921qkNBb2oQnkf1Hvdm1T5F2Q3TGCy+PZ0KgNhKXr3VNPp wJIkpH+CHWH7uOaZy7fVQa6/IJQNq/NjdRY8/rqnJB8fiK0HT8i8OuEiQ1vC5A9peXPb 5UkQK/dWIikbXvYxiTb4svvOUULrroqcn312tNj3lPYARo5qqW8nPhwDcu5GYqlHt8vZ eue34JL9oEmfnZ1fIQucVntjmNP9Vmov1dPkAqz4BXFhJaGXdZtPhtF0sH9HMwUyfnHM SWWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bms96TpAfh1QvdxG5rdm63NNqjF1ulBX8uptslYzuBMVEN6WZ OAK2Z+Lg5JRyQ0t99DWUepaUUaf2BkV+lf3dztTo4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlR+VICS3Prl0UiBzV4AgwRVDYt8sjKK99FfuglgfLpzcbODZSNNi3xbOIVxaNBx5HV8Xox+4rt5nzeOJ1bd8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7819:: with SMTP id t25mr948867ljc.371.1601659571622; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 10:26:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:25:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d1624e05b0b36d4a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:26:15 -0000 --000000000000d1624e05b0b36d4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Colleagues, > > Probably the last message of the day for me. > > As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used > for chair selection and escalation. The chairs propose to send the > following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees. > Could you provide any comments you think appropriate? While this issue m= ay > not be a =E2=80=9Cprimary=E2=80=9D one, because it may take some time for= the BoT to > respond, we thought we might want to get this out the door. The BoT only > has one more meeting this year listed on the web site. > > The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor toward o= r > against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide you > information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the job. I= t > will then be up to you to decide how to proceed=E2=80=A6 as it is now. > > Questions for your consideration now: > > > 1. Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we > think we would be asking of the BoT? > 2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed? > 3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison? > 4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions? > > > Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday? > We should not send this. It is massively premature. -Ekr > Have a good weekend, all. > > Brian & Eliot > > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94 > > Dear Trustees, > > The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us > about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC Seri= es > future.[1] In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select and > possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor to th= e > role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series Advisor). It > would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the terminus of the appeal= s > chain for any disputes about consensus. Another proposal asks the IAB to > take on these responsibilities. > > In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would > appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be in= a > position to take on these responsibilities, should the program prefer tha= t > option. > > Among other things, the chairs=E2=80=99 responsibility and authority incl= ude > convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus on > questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to advanc= e, > and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of IETF working > group chairs. > > In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees to review > relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some > understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people yo= u > would view as qualified. One should anticipate this process being invoke= d > every several years, based on chair performance and availability. > > To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to > review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program > mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in whic= h > decisions were made or declared. One would hope that this would be a rar= e > occurrence. > > At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this > matter. The program will take any views you might have on this matter in= to > consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals. > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > On behalf of the program, > > Eliot Lear > Brian Rosen > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000d1624e05b0b36d4a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Eliot= Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@= dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Colleagues,
Probably the last message of the day for me.

As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees= be used for chair selection and escalation.=C2=A0 The chairs propose to se= nd the following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustee= s.=C2=A0 Could you provide any comments you think appropriate?=C2=A0 While = this issue may not be a =E2=80=9Cprimary=E2=80=9D one, because it may take = some time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out = the door.=C2=A0 The BoT only has one more meeting this year =C2=A0listed on= the web site. =C2=A0

The purpose of the proposed = liaison is not to indicate any favor toward or against using ISOC as discus= sed below, but simply to provide you information about whether the BoT woul= d be willing to take on the job.=C2=A0 It will then be up to you to decide = how to proceed=E2=80=A6 as it is now.

Questions fo= r your consideration now:

  1. Do the responsib= ilities discussed below accurately reflect what we think we would be asking= of the BoT?
  2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discu= ssed?
  3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liai= son?
  4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions?

Could you kindly provide your views by next= Friday?

We should = not send this. It is massively premature.

-Ekr=


Have a = good weekend, all.

Brian & Eliot
=E2=80=94<snip>=E2=80=94

Dear Trustees,
The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us a= bout having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC Series = future.[1]=C2=A0 In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select and = possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor to the = role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series Advisor).=C2=A0= It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the terminus of the appe= als chain for any disputes about consensus. Another proposal asks the IAB = to take on these responsibilities.

In order for us to proceed wi= th discussion about this topic, we would appreciate the views of the BoT ab= out whether you believe you would be in a position to take on these respons= ibilities, should the program prefer that option.=C2=A0=C2=A0
<= div style=3D"line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Among other things, the chairs=E2=80=99 responsibility and authority = include convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consens= us on questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to ad= vance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of IETF wor= king group chairs.

In order to choose good chairs, we would expe= ct trustees=C2=A0to review relevant RFCs that specify chair qualification= s, and to have both some understanding of the role and a process by which= you could find people you would view as qualified.=C2=A0 One should antici= pate this process being invoked every several years, based on chair perform= ance and availability.

To assess any process appeals, we would e= xpect trustees to be able to review the RFC containing relevant rules and = procedures, the program mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings o= f any sessions in which decisions were made or declared.=C2=A0 One would ho= pe that this would be a rare occurrence.

At this point in time, = there is no consensus in the program on this matter.=C2=A0 The program will= take any views you might have on this matter into consideration as we proc= eed with further development of proposals.

Thank you for your ti= me and consideration.

On behalf of the program,

=
Eliot= Lear
Brian Rosen

<= /div>
--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--000000000000d1624e05b0b36d4a-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:34:21 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7FA3A165E for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J4mLaZhZXqgV for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAD573A11F3 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2xty4RDcz1pC6l; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601660058; bh=opKryLmJy/zffWRb58VZ45KvrKm37Kbzl7Rbrg0RJT8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YKpvutr56dc9lfy5Dm61BRzQCykMuVaZcHn4aMl5TdS+VrjDecxEcRH2WZqJxNF2U nQxpq6+/kD8RKBtLu5XlE6wT6CJuu0YEiYrgvcIGlxR/15i4bCEK3wnKMhDCgPIR7S nfQjjdvzC3QtshlmmZPo8q6iJZF/nvJX/du0pZ4I= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C2xty0gMwz1pBnW; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:34:17 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:34:20 -0000 Yes, I think this person (for what I envision the job to be) is a paid expert in (among other things) technical publishing. Yours, Joel On 10/2/2020 1:11 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > This is the next issue in our list. Please state views. > > Eliot > From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:34:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256A33A11F3 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MbX2xR0H8y9B for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42CE43A1103 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2xvc0sKtz5bdGf for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2xvc0d8sz1pC6y; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601660092; bh=vkHjJBVrkSvC5OaWhrm4RnBRXl1z5D0nhqyS/2MBzX4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TzfNN3YH9IlYgUoYqxPMBcuHPSTsvfD00DZ+KRYgoVlWFKlzlsQXiBbcRJDxADIVK GhQVdfyMgzEeZ7CV4O60Cn58XObB2txvkp1v7Cx8MxkiDlULyk4HhZb7+8iAlC4g/r 94Q4/Qx/2MpKB1uWFWPIgxMhddQ3K9De3wRfXvjQ= X-Quarantine-ID: <7IVtF4obMYWF> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C2xvb46qlz1pC3Z; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:34:50 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:34:54 -0000 Yes, as you suggest, I believe the role we need is more managerial and leadership rather than advisory. Yours, Joel On 10/2/2020 1:13 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that he is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel pointed out that he is less comfortable with that notion and more comfortable with a managerial function. Please feel free to discuss. > From nobody Fri Oct 2 10:37:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010853A116D for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYKGnmUkuaIf for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E503A1103 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2xyk0M20z1pBnW; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601660254; bh=GhBe8c37aF8xgcZ6QDu9Uj/QH+mhiaGLYfsKqkXcJX0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Nw901rBG+NDnimfcZYPJACgptYHwQpE2eM6SdSud9h6157VdwLy6vHkxE/Bmo2aJB DbF9l0BC3lrDi4jhzGzZYku252wbbfki/SCZqtxcYlCOvavSp+vasH11E5prRMDwkN GJt6Nfn3c29pvGvZ4Km7IrPkJv9LRkQvsTcbl2yw= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C2xyj3TdWz1pC3Z; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:37:33 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <0a37b503-f70f-f463-6d88-c55012b6a9fe@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:37:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:37:37 -0000 I would suggest replace "Another proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities" with "There are other proposals that do not place this task on the ISOC BoT." We don't want them comparing proposals. We just want them indicating whether they are willing to be considered as one of the ideas on the table. Yours, Joel On 10/2/2020 1:23 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Colleagues, > > Probably the last message of the day for me. > > As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used > for chair selection and escalation.  The chairs propose to send the > following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees. >  Could you provide any comments you think appropriate?  While this > issue may not be a “primary” one, because it may take some time for the > BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out the door.  The > BoT only has one more meeting this year  listed on the web site. > > The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor toward > or against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide you > information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the job. >  It will then be up to you to decide how to proceed… as it is now. > > Questions for your consideration now: > > 1. Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we > think we would be asking of the BoT? > 2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed? > 3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison? > 4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions? > > > Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday? > > Have a good weekend, all. > > Brian & Eliot > > —— > > Dear Trustees, > > The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us > about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC > Series future.[1]  In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select > and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor > to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series > Advisor).  It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the > terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Another > proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities. > > In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would > appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be > in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program > prefer that option. > > Among other things, the chairs’ responsibility and authority include > convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus on > questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to > advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of > IETF working group chairs. > > In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees to review > relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some > understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people > you would view as qualified.  One should anticipate this process being > invoked every several years, based on chair performance and availability. > > To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to > review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program > mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in > which decisions were made or declared.  One would hope that this would > be a rare occurrence. > > At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this > matter.  The program will take any views you might have on this matter > into consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals. > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > On behalf of the program, > > Eliot Lear > Brian Rosen > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 > From nobody Fri Oct 2 11:10:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38103A1663; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ct-tlTHn48wj; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4289F3A165C; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092HrRGB010014; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:10:37 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ETpXys4Prc33M1+dkCUENVWfZvMCk9ucY7eQlwUGSbA=; b=HZ63O9epRUsVDn9FNkqP7tLoOHwFrH6bJ3UNVfgPXvgSHTBlCiVmjQ/uaSyzd5ANPKgq iqiFonvUeiU6uRb56BTf3T4MxZmJKCBxYQ09YHJh8UF6hYtawcc0e3UcKBjAWGNMQb73 xkOQgRc1j0tt2U0YZpbMVtYGKssuqSNsn9xfOqHqzUyOX5LQhocq3DzZ27aCaUm2JWnh OE9XMdNxej8+aFC2k3JB0kZTIqaw7bbmAmObC66/KDg5Ea32pKvlVLw4JRfJWBi3xomE C2A0KP54282BVv0rtkJF+7Aa7r/jJuuY4yfrwGq+rrGhUC+6T2BBuHbAGdoStqs8gXLV JA== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 33sw6ffbcb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:10:37 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092Hl053023603; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:10:36 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.57]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 33t0yxka7w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 14:10:36 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:10:36 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:10:35 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:10:35 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? Thread-Index: AQHWmN8swlqh2UfekEa4FyzoAvW2j6mE1dGA///HFoA= Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:10:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.40.20081201 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <5B2D2EE4FEAF7D43A424F5019ED7DEC9@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_11:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=848 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2010020130 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_11:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:10:40 -0000 SSB0aGluayB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBiZSBhIHBhaWQgZXhwZXJ0LiAgSSBvbmx5IGp1c3QgcmVhbGl6 ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGlzIG1lYW5zLCB0byBtZSwgdGhhdCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBiZSBhbiBhZHZpc29y LCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBhY3R1YWxseSBydW5uaW5nIHRoaW5ncy4NCiANCg0K From nobody Fri Oct 2 11:13:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B2E3A1664; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L04GSbgRHouk; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771AD3A1663; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092HnafA004794; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:12:57 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=BD8ZGAp97exdfaYVrSUNUjGVV88ssLRCeq1nNO9AJSc=; b=h4DTsBjRdOODf9FN2dP0P1TuhYwLrqWnF9K85jP6DcaM126/ea4Fj9TUrh3+ofoFgctu OPbid1Yl4cxjMVV5w/DHM32ydIXQ3abXOvh+NHAtK5hGh6P7h1oUbLFieJJcIdkIp9Og GG9WXIQtkiQE5uvzfp4PLT/OkWBE3XroTw3l/G/LBh5M3+Mr2FYEWJZ+oQpJn8XyPk+j 25zpEwBm4IxzJFeMSnFB/ZzY7uUSQ38+1oHzUx6muYgaLbSbexmOl2LgdEg/V4Ydb+Q4 kJkLMadzRCk7oQes1tEtrpXgBD7UjL+QBzR80+sJXfgady8LbjDZK90sRxHbvONxJJhK PA== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 33sx2k0y55-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:12:57 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092Hl1IW023609; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:12:56 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 33t0yxkaen-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 14:12:56 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:12:55 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:12:56 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eric Rescorla , Eliot Lear CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC Thread-Index: AQHWmODMHj+ZtuulxE2EjFpRwzgT9KmE01+A///KLIA= Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:12:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.40.20081201 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E05EF587964A404C94207141CDF9843Aakamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_11:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=970 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2010020130 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_11:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:13:00 -0000 --_000_E05EF587964A404C94207141CDF9843Aakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQoNCiAgKiAgIFdlIHNob3VsZCBub3Qgc2VuZCB0aGlzLiBJdCBpcyBtYXNzaXZlbHkgcHJlbWF0 dXJlLg0KDQpBZ3JlZWQuDQo= --_000_E05EF587964A404C94207141CDF9843Aakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6NSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJp Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25z ICovDQpwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjow aW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJp Zjt9DQpwLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGxpLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGRpdi5Nc29MaXN0 UGFyYWdyYXBoDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTozNDsNCgltYXJnaW4tdG9wOjBpbjsNCglt YXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0Oi41aW47 DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjt9 DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0O30NCi5N c29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdp bjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29y ZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi8qIExpc3QgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBsaXN0IGwwDQoJe21zby1saXN0 LWlkOjEwMTE0ODg0MjsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10eXBlOmh5YnJpZDsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0 ZS1pZHM6NjMyODM4MjIyIC0zNzE0MzM3MzQgNjc2OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2OTMgNjc2OTg2ODkgNjc2 OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2OTMgNjc2OTg2ODkgNjc2OTg2OTEgNjc2OTg2OTM7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2 ZWwxDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrv g5g7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlv bjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJ bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7DQoJbXNvLWJpZGktZm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDINCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1m b3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5v bmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVp bjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsMw0KCXttc28t bGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1s ZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0 ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxl dmVsNA0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6 74K3Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRp b246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBs aXN0IGwwOmxldmVsNQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxl dmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVy LXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3Vy aWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw2DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1 bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1z dG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50 Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpTeW1ib2w7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1s ZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1zby1sZXZl bC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0 LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDps ZXZlbDkNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0 Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0 aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OldpbmdkaW5nczt9 DQpAbGlzdCBsMQ0KCXttc28tbGlzdC1pZDo3ODk2NjgwOTM7DQoJbXNvLWxpc3QtdGVtcGxhdGUt aWRzOjExMzgyNDAwOTQ7fQ0Kb2wNCgl7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KdWwNCgl7bWFyZ2lu LWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBs aW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjx1bCBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLXRvcDowaW4iIHR5cGU9ImRp c2MiPg0KPGxpIGNsYXNzPSJNc29MaXN0UGFyYWdyYXBoIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGlu O21zby1saXN0OmwwIGxldmVsMSBsZm8yIj5XZSBzaG91bGQgbm90IHNlbmQgdGhpcy4gSXQgaXMg bWFzc2l2ZWx5IHByZW1hdHVyZS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvbGk+PC91bD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+QWdyZWVk LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+ DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_E05EF587964A404C94207141CDF9843Aakamaicom_-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 11:18:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C4F3A1667 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-NrNRRag_dg for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D8733A1663 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:18:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2744; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601662704; x=1602872304; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=K4VpMOKg8KbQBkWctIFLsewWrA42VJHK//uGtN7tMXE=; b=NfG7oWw2r+3pHX6yVQy7SJFOl8r6c/wXpF3NWAK2Xx9IehfDRiPvaBTd pqoQTz5VCDi52Lkv8D0MHspopn96n6/mrq7hEOPxcQoGxxjAHTwv6OrdX OjILjrWSomTJ3fRSd7dPJchN3eAOLCfViyot7Y/SQ9HPqq4DCBhaF8t9F 0=; X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DtAAChbXdf/xbLJq1gGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAUCBT4EjgQeBRQEgEiyNP4g2lAmIGQsBAQENAQEvBAEBhEoCgjcmOBMCA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVyAQEBAQIBeQULCwQULlcGE4Mmgl0gq?= =?us-ascii?q?RZ0gTSFVIUEgTiJHIQtggCBESccgk0+glwEhSeCLQSmPJESgnGDE5dOAx+hH?= =?us-ascii?q?a9Jg14CBAYFAhWBayOBVzMaCBsVZQGCPj4SGQ2caD8DMAI1AgYKAQEDCY5IA?= =?us-ascii?q?QE?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,328,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="27638207" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Oct 2020 18:18:19 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com [10.61.109.233]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 092IIJSm019675 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:18:19 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A428E99D-C494-4F68-BBF7-4FAE77F4E421" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:18:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" To: "Salz, Rich" References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.109.233, dhcp-10-61-109-233.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:18:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A428E99D-C494-4F68-BBF7-4FAE77F4E421 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Just as a caution for the group to think about: It might take months for the BoT to respond. The next BoT meeting is = November 21-22. The next BoT meeting is in March. Eliot > On 2 Oct 2020, at 20:12, Salz, Rich = wrote: >=20 > =20 > We should not send this. It is massively premature. > =20 > Agreed. --Apple-Mail=_A428E99D-C494-4F68-BBF7-4FAE77F4E421 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Just = as a caution for the group to think about:

It might take months for the BoT to = respond.  The next BoT meeting is November 21-22.  The next = BoT meeting is in March.

Eliot

On 2 Oct 2020, at 20:12, Salz, = Rich <rsalz=3D40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

 
  • We should not send this. It is = massively premature.
 
Agreed.
<= br class=3D"">
= --Apple-Mail=_A428E99D-C494-4F68-BBF7-4FAE77F4E421-- From nobody Fri Oct 2 11:38:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD3A3A1691 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=pD3BhpJf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Cq+30TAy Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXeRR6UafQr7 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04AD83A168C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47074 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2020 18:38:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=b7de.5f7773b7.k2010; bh=yWv2AeDVu6tLHqAq+O/GMhh7oQMMJzCxEbxFG9LFYnU=; b=pD3BhpJf1XVt6gnLjaNEnDi+VqFTYBvEqLH+f/5T9X1t4+KrnP4DK/o4dzf8e7hI3zlKlyAvhTrnVg0VzkfsnBRIMLgWsMq45nWqAJokPMBOls6Ajz6Z4OUEzDpcXmGzGT3sBIbd63ZgwRYGcie15EHcPShJIt1OPTC2jWE5lbH0+ygabbcudvkw1uuYFQNPzJ12G92btVSytdNAShnDik3YhbbbCL9GCo+go/rQBnhMBm1SG+cL3+vPMkV7FdQ3Di1IzZz9dAI2YHNEvYMuyNDDQU7Wxdbl3DYAIJ6a1pMN/ErGBDEDwMfeHNukr5o/5zY0n5ewkn0wc6R7JRwaUw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=b7de.5f7773b7.k2010; bh=yWv2AeDVu6tLHqAq+O/GMhh7oQMMJzCxEbxFG9LFYnU=; b=Cq+30TAyw3Aq2W0tnKB+ODBffCnBQy240L2fKtHItIZJ5kDRjowre5UADkZXGg3dhkDEmxMfUdkb2QeKlhJk9cOjwCnX1REQXF07GQBo+EApJG/SqJb3Q0NYpZrujWLFqU0rEtWtUv0qzN6l8vnbH0BkjlM2bxL9QyeyqucogzhMn0+8BIpemcSRcgD7dSBK7PVntzVnFaL92JT/Cnd/GRnKx7vsuBGvpGUsOBQd0XUQqxZ9Kif166fYNqX+uZnzL8s5AS7/qCNA0mVDmBl2LLQZKY4zQx2wc8sRGMQwGxAKqihbOXzk983fpdRnMLmYRVAdgvC5NaNdvlYXkZiDiA== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 02 Oct 2020 18:38:46 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4BC0222D748B; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: 2 Oct 2020 14:38:46 -0400 Message-Id: <20201002183846.4BC0222D748B@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org Cc: lear@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:38:52 -0000 In article <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> you write: >As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be used for chair selection and escalation. The chairs propose to send the >following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees. Could you provide any comments you think appropriate? While this >issue may not be a “primary” one, because it may take some time for the BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out the >door. The BoT only has one more meeting this year listed on the web site. We have monthly informal calls and an active mailing list so I don't think it will take us very long to say no. R's, John From nobody Fri Oct 2 11:57:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6F53A169C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfFIrhZACTC9 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A683A169A for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse469.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.215] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx168.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kOQFA-000w32-O0 for rfced-future@iab.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 20:57:26 +0200 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C2zkp384jz1kQv for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kOQF8-0003Hj-AZ for rfced-future@iab.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 11:57:22 -0700 Received: (qmail 29136 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2020 18:57:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.46.239]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 2 Oct 2020 18:57:20 -0000 To: "Salz, Rich" , "Joel M. Halpern" , Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: <461fe2ad-ca65-2582-5c11-27237b1b6c95@huitema.net> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:57:19 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.215 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0Z1apovzGPsYhEeBL1aoZmqpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4jPZ0lN0erA1yKt3e8B4Dq3QVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuE/oVmIjiUjKW4wTbK4KINs+42Vki7412dpbhrD2d47zbC3VvU djSCswikK/licfX+oIF6uBSWByrPG2Vxuo/vVPllrFEbCkMryfcYCsgMUJObfBQoU3roWy2GH1DY sAiH3gousbgNfxi2R3uFLvZP/HBXvrLBlKCVRjjdPbjQ4HnBNho1Lszw5OO01yYoll8q2UgzFF+j HNSbIoW1Q++Wvj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFg3eKzPG9E5MikC2dVXWcpK172i/E5sOgbaCtBiSIx 1XwCY8vmv+JqOVJamBHfOGVwjn7Xut/lXagsodd5qqODTFiwcpU4fyz75jxpU98RPGiH1Wgh6RAe nBR+licROGZNFSBymhtbd6ygEffuU1+3EbilPGcyP4k6t/ikhe7HTlprgCGjjAcBiXn3a6Ia4eLB H1fP3YU+2XWwKzL04bcfwzQZWnqpeh+UbGCVNeqba5Xked+P+aSZU/EB7YnRWs2LBDMrD7q/cJog wbqzsuokLfiAPKV55MH6TFdB+kIGZ07JPy9twDyaj6un7qWOkNem/Kfu1O1CKWnYtKBfdF46Lro2 /iOPST99sY6vT74gn+PXdRjeeYOc4D1auWIFhSEIZzYsgh3ZEbWYZJYL8I/8w6nIoDr0sXUZ7YZo Z/GZ+hXPnkLS9Oo2rnoDkPMmYws/jALIEk7e/m7I/2vCMQjvMFTIwLG5tR7EnM5HsSwoavLd14/y 82ebPziYNS9mrGfphl+Vcq8rhM3tJ8iXgDJaTYQ7ppmvpzmHp5jJAeLmE9zghLEjHJbHVHmv5sbq r/Q= X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:57:29 -0000 On 10/2/2020 11:10 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > I think they should be a paid expert. I only just realized that this means, to me, that they should be an advisor, rather than actually running things. +1. We are hiring an expert based on their publishing expertise, not their management expertise. The more we separate expertise and management the better. -- Christian Huitema From nobody Fri Oct 2 12:19:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693513A16AC; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b32dGjNPcpaz; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 400B23A16AB; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092JDkP1031311; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:19:14 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=DLOoMrzd7pKaylnZlsPfHlsjHJx9PKwd6OlchyNQsDE=; b=IUSoKhAVt0mvrDjtt3mlsUg/2q8Jw1tvijD894jJSf4LsbXFD7rL2euA9vlqJdDjDpKZ jp9muxCw5x/Fcsq5TnQjfYXnTKCCR+IId1I0YMeeYUII+JxEeIjBMxs3eQPi1nNkXx+j UvW4CtpmYWfQFtf8M+aBY0tWOXD7QN5QWb7zTKBFYILlWttwpHsk/IOa/BOGtsiYTSWz RXr8k8lKWyCIr5s3au0QNxXObJn89AwDToyYF5e7zw07TmSDsGxZnL7LdIUewkexVUJu gV4h3wwZMseCb7AVGn1TQZNtdjVDIN3DuLuaPEK5JThjUNZjEmE2VU/K5O0oREdBEQEy rA== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 33sx2k3cf2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 20:19:14 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 092J10gP019493; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:19:12 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 33t0yxkf6s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:19:12 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:19:11 -0400 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:19:12 -0400 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) Thread-Index: AQHWmN9eK288IjVza0+3Dyx7kCSEr6mEsBGA Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 19:19:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.40.20081201 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <05BBD5986D92A04DBB9F482E0230AAF9@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_14:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=960 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2010020135 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-02_14:2020-10-02, 2020-10-02 signatures=0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:19:16 -0000 QXMgSSBzYWlkIGluIHRoZSBvdGhlciB0aHJlYWQsIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB3ZSBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBh IHBhaWQgZXhwZXJ0IHdoaWNoIHRvIG1lIGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBhbiBhZHZpc29y LCBub3QgYW4gZXhleHV0aXZlIGVkaXRvci4NCg0K From nobody Fri Oct 2 12:30:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F131C3A16B3; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJbocbng1XuM; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A103A16B2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 092JUPa0005572; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:30:25 +0100 Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA3F2203B; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:30:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A9212203A; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:30:25 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.113.82.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 092JUOi6021308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:30:24 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Eliot Lear'" , References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:30:24 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <011501d698f2$79f475e0$6ddd61a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AQGbDpQiUv198yteDbwcfbSRtW2gqKn7xzMQ X-Originating-IP: 87.113.82.114 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25702.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.809-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--9.809-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25702.002 X-TMASE-Result: 10--9.809100-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: scwq2vQP8OHkQwDXuLnCoXFPUrVDm6jtjsNU4u3tuh3/W9TIn2Qlcni1 9VmdeeTejIIQs5+9pzbrUYVWpbfQ3pPLsnaBYJK3UCN6dT53ONN/7iVTXtdMVS62hjZS0WoYYrf KyR8RtosbuyS3yUdFJ1xwaswi32NxuRYOqbtY1om8coKUcaOOvWeKMm8nChkmDmyK2dHBfCwP4D e83brmF62PNRpPqk0FkZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0XyhUPfLVy1gdhtHIYYgLGbjZQSFbL1bvQAXnN0 DN7HnFmJMlY2wmqGsmvR87y2Ygo+6VrVYQb1KzOD0yuAjhpD8f7e5YuTvofvpRMZUCEHkRt X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:30:31 -0000 Agreeing with Joel, Rich, Christian. Yes, this should be a paid expert in technical publishing. To be brutal: - we don't know what we don't know about technical publishing - only an expert (not someone merely with experience) will be able to reconcile "industry norms" with our peculiarities - volunteers are great, but paid people get jobs done A -----Original Message----- From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Eliot Lear Sent: 02 October 2020 18:12 To: rfced-future@iab.org Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? This is the next issue in our list. Please state views. Eliot -- Rfced-future mailing list Rfced-future@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Fri Oct 2 12:36:27 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3591B3A16C2; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I_GTe-iEDh8y; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3745F3A16C1; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 092JaJA8006933; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:36:21 +0100 Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6662203C; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:36:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 185792203A; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:36:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.113.82.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 092JaKbX010781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:36:20 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" , "'Eliot Lear'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 20:36:20 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <011601d698f3$4e1237e0$ea36a7a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AQJd/PaAeD4Tk+qEd+rMZ1rInZB5pQKedgwMqGD3jPA= X-Originating-IP: 87.113.82.114 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25702.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.018-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--16.018-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25702.002 X-TMASE-Result: 10--16.018200-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fE0JoqABJp3kQwDXuLnCoXFPUrVDm6jtF9s8UTYYetW6Gxh0eXo7aylA /rS07QvhBLYDz2I1D3WznBNK6m94gCFkFR3+74+LBeUpwRyLLvpgFto/VVnNJTP3zxumESVRhe+ 15n9pLpG7O1dtKxjuBJuBGuUUEP765+WpGez/qqgNwUVhIF6pVs4Vo5svdK3bLraGNlLRahhit8 rJHxG2ixu7JLfJR0UnCSm5FtnCe0HTONCKXUvczvlZlPYYWH6dodWhIlqm4MIlDFClnE0AaY93W UsgC0Xi/ye/3Hc9K1qBfX1jNcASyR6+395u0O4NAVIvB67JDE8iJN3aXuV/oZuQSXVIw/hVYj+E 5KawQB/vxEfR0SJPrsEHLjwHc5WUNlBChwzdMMzCtSG/SQAC8ZLQR37yyvyamyiLZetSf8nJ4y0 wP1A6ADMMszeAZpzJdB0ntd9Tzp6QZS2ujCtcuA== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 19:36:25 -0000 Weeeeell, we seem to be unpicking "what needs to be done?" rather in a backwards direction. It seems to me that we need: 1. someone to advice on all aspects of technical publishing 2. someone(s) to manage the various teams and tasks 3. someone(s) to lead by setting direction/policy We could combine all three, or separate them into different people's hands. We could say that 3 is guidance/advice received from 1 and that some body of people will actually determine/initiate the policy. So the answer to issue 12 is dependent on how we intend the other requirements to be met (if, indeed, we agree they are all requirements). A -----Original Message----- From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: 02 October 2020 18:35 To: Eliot Lear ; rfced-future@iab.org Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) Yes, as you suggest, I believe the role we need is more managerial and leadership rather than advisory. Yours, Joel On 10/2/2020 1:13 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that he is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel pointed out that he is less comfortable with that notion and more comfortable with a managerial function. Please feel free to discuss. > -- Rfced-future mailing list Rfced-future@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Fri Oct 2 13:05:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242E43A16CF for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:05:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ng7t3N56qQy for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F3333A16D0 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id n14so2036243pff.6 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZkClKlGpWEdvIKEFJcThGQcLt7ePsScjZB9j5jUBaes=; b=BxL1WH0tiyaJoGdqAfVKGgmpUXZhF1MYiAmI40cd5k/DO/iwfK4guAs7QVwBAcnQ7T /sz6aZpnhNTqBplB5iO4PYm3V4Mdr+XCt6F2onjIWMSRHI32x5GZeZnQRsLBSLzKTsrx Iv/SxyTDsOQmc2wLMKUcP9FlQklmewjqQd/MpNAs3t+Sk9T4Sp1X4T/huk3ZAtm6lanP yuidkhyGVr9ZhXol897LZXkU+QieOpSnSwUB7a8eGU73MKKZmqlLsaJyVrs9Ea8k2d7M zWx1afzt6S2FxsryxhNcrlHuub4cblcmqNaDOS8znOjI/nexAQTJeiqUKK4m1nYViSkE hMYw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZkClKlGpWEdvIKEFJcThGQcLt7ePsScjZB9j5jUBaes=; b=ngYEvgLKei3ipoxux1XOBbSxvmScaePMyUAbMK+FmDbSzxDq39z7zjTzK6rxwcmJbC gQNIgHNGL3RUZnE7utkVETPIL4vvrj3G7mY5GXRewy+8Cbdxg6Mrfui+JAb+r1chfEll eyOQqpJGC+IovbJ5EE+YNRXY2B9/X2FIz8I3hy8WkK5Ol4Yu331xOvC2B+uKeP2tZZvA EJZi8CVnEd+Jc77aNiZu0ulcVhhcqzBxFGI+THpLnOmjZg67Xnzg5nG021C8xu0lc24Q B4eJh21yy70rW9Bj+op7dX/DB4/85Cghqp5ZUmmjr1kP4naPws6lAeolPnbOEKTBkBV4 MrNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XT7tdK5vh7DrdgEvCWwcV0JwCYisYG9FV9XqEQrgJNjQIWf+v 7S792bwGz5MONCNMifZ1BHmuguxO5y/N3w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxcAS9usYqufZZBJzkHIS7RlrTU/HLdBtIJ8TUEJQ3JoG4ZPYopMmps34kRG015VaGOrCsEA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:939b:0:b029:142:2501:39de with SMTP id t27-20020aa7939b0000b0290142250139demr4376347pfe.45.1601669153148; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e21sm2442180pgi.91.2020.10.02.13.05.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT) To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> <0a37b503-f70f-f463-6d88-c55012b6a9fe@joelhalpern.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:05:48 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0a37b503-f70f-f463-6d88-c55012b6a9fe@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 20:05:56 -0000 Hi Eliot, I also think it's premature. It's also described too simply and in words that sort of call for John Levine's reaction. If there is consensus here that we want to move the responsibility away from the IAB, I think we'd have to prepare the case for moving it to ISOC= more carefully. When I wrote my -00 draft I certainly didn't do any due diligence on the idea. Logically it goes in several steps, such as 1. Does ISOC support the goal of the RFC Series as an important community-wide archival series? 2. Does ISOC support the proposal for [insert the new model for RFC Series strategy here]? 3. Does ISOC agree with the (hypothetical) conclusion that the community oversight responsibility should move away from the IAB [for specific reasons TBD]? 4. Does ISOC agree that it is appropriate for ISOC to take that oversight= role? 5. Does ISOC agree that the final oversight responsibility therefore must lie with the ISOC Board? 6. If so, what specific mechanism would the ISOC Board prefer? Regards Brian Carpenter On 03-Oct-20 06:37, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would suggest replace "Another proposal asks the IAB to take on these= =20 > responsibilities" with "There are other proposals that do not place thi= s=20 > task on the ISOC BoT." We don't want them comparing proposals. We jus= t=20 > want them indicating whether they are willing to be considered as one o= f=20 > the ideas on the table. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 10/2/2020 1:23 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Colleagues, >> >> Probably the last message of the day for me. >> >> As you know, Brian has proposed that the ISOC Board of Trustees be use= d=20 >> for chair selection and escalation. =C2=A0The chairs propose to send t= he=20 >> following text to the IAB to be liaised to the ISOC Board of Trustees.= =20 >> =C2=A0Could you provide any comments you think appropriate? =C2=A0Whi= le this=20 >> issue may not be a =E2=80=9Cprimary=E2=80=9D one, because it may take = some time for the=20 >> BoT to respond, we thought we might want to get this out the door. =C2= =A0The=20 >> BoT only has one more meeting this year =C2=A0listed on the web site. >> >> The purpose of the proposed liaison is not to indicate any favor towar= d=20 >> or against using ISOC as discussed below, but simply to provide you=20 >> information about whether the BoT would be willing to take on the job.= =20 >> =C2=A0It will then be up to you to decide how to proceed=E2=80=A6 as = it is now. >> >> Questions for your consideration now: >> >> 1. Do the responsibilities discussed below accurately reflect what we= >> think we would be asking of the BoT? >> 2. Are there other responsibilities that need to be discussed? >> 3. Do you otherwise agree with the content of this proposed liaison? >> 4. Should we ask the IAB or anyone else these questions? >> >> >> Could you kindly provide your views by next Friday? >> >> Have a good weekend, all. >> >> Brian & Eliot >> >> =E2=80=94=E2=80=94 >> >> Dear Trustees, >> >> The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us= =20 >> about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC=20 >> Series future.[1]=C2=A0 In particular, the proposal would have the BoT= select=20 >> and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successo= r=20 >> to the role of he RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series=20 >> Advisor).=C2=A0 It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the = >> terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Anothe= r=20 >> proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities. >> >> In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would = >> appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be= =20 >> in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program=20 >> prefer that option. >> >> Among other things, the chairs=E2=80=99 responsibility and authority i= nclude=20 >> convening meetings, either face to face or virtual, gauging consensus = on=20 >> questions, and whether any documents within the group are ready to=20 >> advance, and handling other administrative tasks similar to those of=20 >> IETF working group chairs. >> >> In order to choose good chairs, we would expect trustees=C2=A0to revie= w=20 >> relevant RFCs that specify chair qualifications, and to have both some= =20 >> understanding of the role and a process by which you could find people= =20 >> you would view as qualified.=C2=A0 One should anticipate this process = being=20 >> invoked every several years, based on chair performance and availabili= ty. >> >> To assess any process appeals, we would expect trustees to be able to = >> review the RFC containing relevant rules and procedures, the program=20 >> mailing list as well as any minutes or recordings of any sessions in=20 >> which decisions were made or declared.=C2=A0 One would hope that this = would=20 >> be a rare occurrence. >> >> At this point in time, there is no consensus in the program on this=20 >> matter.=C2=A0 The program will take any views you might have on this m= atter=20 >> into consideration as we proceed with further development of proposals= =2E >> >> Thank you for your time and consideration. >> >> On behalf of the program, >> >> Eliot Lear >> Brian Rosen >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00 >> >=20 From nobody Fri Oct 2 13:09:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A133A16D3 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:09:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KEEob7MRf4Mo for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE8D3A16D2 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id d13so1514195pgl.6 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DHl2On8WJDgOuv+R2X8sUouxW001ChGQHIpEdMb0EpM=; b=hJy6vHxpZ+xQqt+VebWHguhoS+Fhlc4vH17gEnbkUdEPMpscEb01OUIIu1ucDFIid+ +pI/BS0pAZZDmFBQnt3x8d+rAXUQdw8iC7I9YkgoWGE8dxzicL/Q6SwARzra/VDAWqF+ G14je/d/2QzNLnI0fz/4nsq7o/qZ7JjSZDZdmSlKjvItOddVkPM5/Dvv9h3cvP+sy24U R1hHXtmJ5KM4cdccG+WU5zpm4ZvYV8hz8qpfokLG3YfTnixJnGFfnPFIRecEOoKGH5uT 5EiAeNaxNkxVpla2LZDAUdAxRfsfI3A0ddA0W5/aAdZIbG8IMywwFw9TTFY3lXxBBKT6 Z5RQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DHl2On8WJDgOuv+R2X8sUouxW001ChGQHIpEdMb0EpM=; b=D1didyGcH1LDWmLwfzTpuulZlC9nlSuxFFSwUmxpZwuepFqwF1/J1SZyUw/l/2qZXJ n9A4s9aiV7xAa6pJAvv+CqFJ3Wb16deYA2ByeXoO8Fgtgd0r9+F7RhSSP9k+urddrmdc s+20NJc4xVS7poclIShK2RD9WM1crZ8jsufvGT5Um9Dk8h4C4TRPP++NHl/wpB9sJWCf CJDDObcaOvYf+3zuHDlj3o/X44hdAyS81/ZE+UqEJ6EjC6cCb6GEAC6uljq4u3aJpaNE DQ/rn0j+25RTKgihu84UBE5STYpnGSAlXfLhyu7/UNSziosDcZV8W1O3ei514AvF3Jqi 4nqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530B3o2nNTeqnv55OqFwcQxap9fZy+BBBxcNdoWYDU+Pop4l+JSR HJW/E9kUH2HlkPVfxeLaCGQUs5++f36Bdg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKnh5Obzwc7WW2S7bXZSkPXLVJVvRSxe1xd1G4Bvs0pWQnnONXDrwqKpN6T11Gt9qeOPa8Fg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:87da:0:b029:13c:1611:66bf with SMTP id i26-20020aa787da0000b029013c161166bfmr4732085pfo.10.1601669340001; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f4sm2708019pfj.147.2020.10.02.13.08.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:08:59 -0700 (PDT) To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Eliot Lear' , rfced-future@iab.org References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> <011501d698f2$79f475e0$6ddd61a0$@olddog.co.uk> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <0485c10d-7691-d471-0512-427e6780009d@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:08:56 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <011501d698f2$79f475e0$6ddd61a0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 20:09:02 -0000 +1 Regards Brian Carpenter On 03-Oct-20 08:30, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Agreeing with Joel, Rich, Christian. > > Yes, this should be a paid expert in technical publishing. > To be brutal: > - we don't know what we don't know about technical publishing > - only an expert (not someone merely with experience) will be able to > reconcile "industry norms" with our peculiarities > - volunteers are great, but paid people get jobs done > > A > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Eliot Lear > Sent: 02 October 2020 18:12 > To: rfced-future@iab.org > Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical > publishing? > > > This is the next issue in our list. Please state views. > > Eliot > From nobody Fri Oct 2 13:25:16 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F7A3A16DA for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZTE97r0TavJ for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D743A16E5 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id q123so2098959pfb.0 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VGsIIZr4yrMKMtl/It1vWmy/xEYsrCD7RAjA24aJCnk=; b=m20Ol+ANficlgaoZBLI30k1vjjVE6UNMSkUCLG7Nkel20WzeHlq58UC0i7hCG1qvSw WGXVZrJkXKuIuGZ7XKk8UAgXeNa/nMywlm7oYKmuwVrfV3k5sO3E/5LSDs3VXL8tu+AK j4r4pDkN4s48t0fkt1iNJx21TS9bL0f2UUZhO338D6RLXMfzHQGj8M3VCR2iURSrR6iX AcumuEgrSJgv8wBfgxM6jEzPltCNdsSNR5Lh0cZzzoJ07SUBxkLL3yIjs7Es35w2dj+G +MrKRqsYh+LHjhrjftXWDj+2GuMyZA9QAuIz44YWRnfyM9LWkftiD1OvoB43jtYWcDAJ OMNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VGsIIZr4yrMKMtl/It1vWmy/xEYsrCD7RAjA24aJCnk=; b=tdjhjbM/HPc6DvNEsbGg9048teEUDpU+upxfpsi2lG81mcKa7BD7Dt/xmhScD90Bl9 4pQEeLj6D0Mw+Kyemw184hmjD/o+YQRy9fV2jMZ2ry4Wi5QYOfCmwhlkyQgL9IxATaOY fr5dh0gBZ7YhBuvcaQKtTMGHVI87MYb4762HhiZukYC9c3m9ky2oCPisalUUb16op9pM gTe6og0XMinx8d12lulWHZqCGleLP1vyJZuwWUW5hXxGlTML7qdXuns8rEb6FnV9GWfY +IqgjEHNMdLYO4IKH32VmikgB6YhQErkY436HIFIgAf7Si/0nMqL83T5Pu5uSkEYyNvP y43g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307UaDDV/VmRWXA53DtWeDb0q7gv5VOnlPdF6jukyGCWQJ/kBRY DQCZn/t0NG/Un+2uAFPOpUfzCGXeiuaVQg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxn2RzbMaWgiZbYOvLLpN0tIIsoUwpbZKS9gYzqdpoc018JZuI8wltdwR4ga1HtidoSJ0fz1g== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4703:: with SMTP id u3mr3959805pga.322.1601670311310; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d6sm2572471pjw.0.2020.10.02.13.25.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:25:10 -0700 (PDT) To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Joel M. Halpern'" , 'Eliot Lear' , rfced-future@iab.org References: <011601d698f3$4e1237e0$ea36a7a0$@olddog.co.uk> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:25:07 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <011601d698f3$4e1237e0$ea36a7a0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 20:25:15 -0000 I think that the root cause of the problems we experienced in 2018 and 2019 was split responsibility about the line management of both RFC production and tools implementation. This was built into the old model, with the IAD, the RSOC, and the RSE all believing they were supposed to be in charge. The arrival of the LLC sharpened up this problem, but also makes it clear that the LLC -- and *only* the LLC -- should be responsible for line management. So I agree with what Adrian says below, and that's why my answer to Issue 12 is unambiguously "advisor". For Adrian's point 2, my answer is unambiguously "IETF LLC" (see issue 4). For Adrian's point 3, see issue 7. However, maybe it should be: "A separate body debates and decides strategy". Regards Brian C On 03-Oct-20 08:36, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Weeeeell, we seem to be unpicking "what needs to be done?" rather in a > backwards direction. > > It seems to me that we need: > 1. someone to advice on all aspects of technical publishing > 2. someone(s) to manage the various teams and tasks > 3. someone(s) to lead by setting direction/policy > > We could combine all three, or separate them into different people's hands. > We could say that 3 is guidance/advice received from 1 and that some body of > people will actually determine/initiate the policy. > > So the answer to issue 12 is dependent on how we intend the other > requirements to be met (if, indeed, we agree they are all requirements). > > A > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Joel M. > Halpern > Sent: 02 October 2020 18:35 > To: Eliot Lear ; rfced-future@iab.org > Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an > executive editor (RSE) > > Yes, as you suggest, I believe the role we need is more managerial and > leadership rather than advisory. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/2/2020 1:13 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that he > is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel pointed out > that he is less comfortable with that notion and more comfortable with a > managerial function. Please feel free to discuss. >> > From nobody Fri Oct 2 18:46:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B11F3A17A0 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FjCH7G_F0u2o for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1410132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.141.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 088733A179E for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:46:03 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Wm77tFOE29tVndDh/8AxOGFRNe2so6ygvcp1MZVpsavblxcY+AeoMHNySNm3FS/j01SOSr99KC5/iJW7NI1soZrVN6ssMOEaKbtdwPoFNNkZ2flnSCJLMk/G7Vc/Lp1NvecJ3G/gwo1UTw4fgJww9PKe6UYAXUsK53WV+APnMdqeUhv//JxZg3LYmnNN9A5aSoVhEIJtj6b+cdy8yNGkCXI2qoKh5csklBfNydvHfqJrGZ6Eqzp1HP4gQnw/UEa3++rCRjnsnDvjB7vgWIKYSCIJmwnEcGbtOvmdmdnB8uDXwKSNiGqGipOy97n6L+ZM79VYorvUHPHaAHIeWSmOHw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=9GUYW38/dsKe1d/Y1KqhZ4OvH+w9L3BcpStPcbb6pag=; b=HyIt7PoZNfEPVOTT2spQLcjTRUTUtp2p+gsTvYh0s9M54wU6iaLr3eVA5Oy1w9Z9JKScZ8IL6yMrsVl108RM98yeoEhg3/Al/u1CXLA2qJRuUSyAOCnEKEptPTzxUjLKJuxU7on7jPxycjt++Mjp803Vq7aNjOs2tZ8CCag4aCs0B+h5ylshPuu8QRMGoTVF2yiwWnTbOBwlaS7WWrbXP37ERtNJiRJml2XkVjylb5XLELdaLKKzIcnfW/ZMuS9f7EqGxGG1Nr/Hs1d/WBkE669LekIr4maqMLsRhM5RJz9VABf0Nvztx9UcKrBBdf8qRw61P8vqbde9xDH0orDmLQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=9GUYW38/dsKe1d/Y1KqhZ4OvH+w9L3BcpStPcbb6pag=; b=uC62j6vVOS0q4BRTboxDBy2k8V56DDkldMVXDuJx1NLyGqn4z4pLH8OmrDir2OQHmZPkYcI80aNogwhX/IJt0ZzO2jZAUkp1Ar6y2S9zsMrblSyxGNz9Hy4zKECkgZBve2c9ttdsfb9riUyXyMzGXvLzy/AojN6qxDhfrMzenww= Authentication-Results: iab.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;iab.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) by OSBPR01MB2165.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:603:23::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.39; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:46:00 +0000 Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::50b8:6d53:1b35:2ef7]) by OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::50b8:6d53:1b35:2ef7%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3433.032; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:46:00 +0000 To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <10fc8774-564f-88a1-3cd7-b27c2966a451@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 10:45:58 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [133.2.210.83] X-ClientProxiedBy: TYAPR01CA0143.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:2d::35) To OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.11.2] (133.2.210.83) by TYAPR01CA0143.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:2d::35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.37 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:46:00 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 0350b606-30bb-4008-1b56-08d8673e146c X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: OSBPR01MB2165: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: DgFxUrqwcoLGjLOWsNvQFEOWsxwkJgqx0VGWbH2vYpilcwUxfb05DF2OdQx0yq4fR+MKOrOf9gBDzRTC3A2L2HEzNkA7F64MhGEKlBgioS+jKco+Em52Sy1a8Ox3CbfA5fWy7DPzgibi2rCrQjZcAw0+xnhVLEQSD3Bj2fx3Ivx45Ax1d/+KKhU/wuOXZHJcnMyzT9Gt7TeOMPqcALsemycRXIrtWq/dxG4YA1ArkTpApZ24uw3ZYoQxeGtO3KbvNbOr80VhgbsRPowFPoQJVm2NbeD4KEGmNR9kv64zvQfWuggYKnS/FlQ/mSTsKcqJCpotr7BdN/MGQCAvcqqjVrU6V7iPldBboekgiMkJRo/LRGLRJOBll4IVBbGR8wyK X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(396003)(39830400003)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(83380400001)(8676002)(2906002)(53546011)(6486002)(786003)(316002)(5660300002)(8936002)(16576012)(66946007)(66476007)(66556008)(956004)(2616005)(52116002)(86362001)(36916002)(31696002)(478600001)(31686004)(186003)(16526019)(26005)(43740500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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 X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0350b606-30bb-4008-1b56-08d8673e146c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2020 01:46:00.4375 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: X5930eA+sJNhURquM70CVbKPhqVcRaLk6FBrB3/anFzfvEiH+3LxG8GROo3FhwffXtQabMuY0lpzg4ws23uRTQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSBPR01MB2165 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Moving on from Issue 10 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 01:46:09 -0000 Hello Eliot, Just a little request: If at all possible, could you please avoid subjects with only numbered issues? I know some people in our community have no problem remembering dozens or hundreds of RFC numbers, but that might not apply to everybody. Also, keeping a link to the issue in the mail might help. Regards, Martin. On 03/10/2020 02:07, Eliot Lear wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Thus far on this issue, there doesn’t seem to be strong objection to the notion that we have a “figurehead or thought leader” of some kind. We have a number of people who simply said, “yes”, one person who said, “no need”, and two who really want to see what comes next. My suggestion is that we do just that, unless people have strong objections. Specifically not yet agreed: what the title of the person is, and for that matter, anything else about this person. Unless people have strong objections, we’d like to say that there is sufficient consensus to move on, and see how far we can get. > > Your chairs will raise issues 11 and 12 respectively in separate messages. Please respond in thread so we can keep track, but of course if you need to link to another point, please feel free to do so. > > Eliot & Brian > > From nobody Fri Oct 2 18:56:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF483A17A2 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rfgN5sLjhpT for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1400115.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.140.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58EF73A17A1 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:56:27 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=TDbhZnxnoFi3qbweaFRuS4+6nHqwbrjz1qPNgLyh4Jur3V8ik/iPnMvli+Ql+OMUFiJUsO+RqsiKbTAeJw+94giMuvBHJHMQNzPuIS9bPlfsTUgk+cPGr0B1f8/xmVwt9ZmZKHrfLJdZZK0JUUPQG/PGpOS0DTDIjVMxUG/tPEzLvmUUtCycQczDZ40h0yYLj9VuRIVDH2lDjhPTq+9On9U7yZP0Geh/SAE5rU4yqdt+12YVwERnHcl2yo3rnfXumnm2VSafCe5Iy+pLjbFlCy5843bi1ZJnnkB9cFRhs7bTlWxxhjoTHxn2B4uVoVp40nkQPl9ArbMqhvrxT2EbOw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LRYt7twAC9pxjIiyYvThQqqQznpicctHmcfrO7xy8Lk=; b=YAgemofgs1ZyORpO8hgVn0G6D5Ge2wb9anj770XhVs25+mDnb4FJgu54z9T9aqAuNGLqVG39SwlDcVdYjxdyBhKgizFrG/+dKUk4dFb6xRLRuE/4yVsQPT10dKaO4AxvRbzJQ8fwfFXV8+c43vPXQONZ8RQaXuxxrAseSAOS29toL3sqLelvctU708C3pE4Rl4ebrkRDu9YwraJOuW19Y+QileZGEqmMcDvGi4kyQLITftB72N58uymUDjzqXxAdYJ9vZySh+TKcOnBhvLmEa2V8tF3JIcqH6s39M8QACOnk/Q1R4DdBjuOeX32w4dQLScBzoMUWVTD3jcoQqaJdww== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LRYt7twAC9pxjIiyYvThQqqQznpicctHmcfrO7xy8Lk=; b=hz9zODdoUuEYl1TFBgF2W+HVw1PGQkq3lrs4ywJhwvpgikr61fdmUevYLQQ2hyLK3wTsedA1IF+oWbA5aC4llmrrvzH3vYIM4UbUdoYWunYA+jbli8WAUSVD+TYLR1fW3pNGXYgGerszNmFfMR/VgVuAJhh8cGHVXG2vkSEvsPA= Authentication-Results: iab.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;iab.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) by OSBPR01MB4824.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:7c::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.39; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:56:25 +0000 Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::50b8:6d53:1b35:2ef7]) by OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::50b8:6d53:1b35:2ef7%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3433.032; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:56:25 +0000 To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <0efc2ed6-7e5a-f91a-f357-ca8e64b31a38@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 10:56:24 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 In-Reply-To: <92C8182F-36F6-4CA4-9E62-145CD3E6ACC5@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [133.2.210.83] X-ClientProxiedBy: TYAPR01CA0082.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:2c::22) To OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.11.2] (133.2.210.83) by TYAPR01CA0082.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:2c::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.32 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 01:56:25 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: fcbef1b9-962c-463c-2abc-08d8673f88fd X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: OSBPR01MB4824: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: vrUsm+qEfIAT6HrvaW0TxH7opw3HisMUViaC1jEFjXbxVLLX7+KY39vlGUgxgrxovVG9FJjEcyE0dUquZoerdVDirAFXTsddbTXUkivFCEPIuSp0ZWlIwcNuPPYkELtS1AmyL0CF1XOobQhA2UEEl92Q95dZJV51YN1efXi+Oxsh7Kp6ftQ99kbgons/dMBcn1hbn2FN9ZFwG/TxtJBEAujD4YJwB7oyRzHrDlRwGSk0reqfa+BlEUdjNRJnSawx/XH0qHgwNzrRgfmhcM4q0xn0+sNAyxHfhAHLLzq44WnUeqhr58DDcz1FviLDwpgpBtK3nStMP6u2GW7chfjLMfo/RAwx9/D00T9jkxWZOiLxaHT6yk1qwvFc5N5ddwBS X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(376002)(396003)(39830400003)(346002)(136003)(956004)(36916002)(52116002)(66476007)(66556008)(66946007)(2906002)(86362001)(186003)(16526019)(5660300002)(26005)(31696002)(6486002)(2616005)(53546011)(316002)(16576012)(83380400001)(786003)(31686004)(8936002)(8676002)(478600001)(43740500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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 X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fcbef1b9-962c-463c-2abc-08d8673f88fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2020 01:56:25.4936 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: yRkph6Q7oXw/r1XKya7CzpMGEKocV5Ov1h1/oefMpZHmcZy+C7OxhwHZsFssYjGGas0SwFaX2VBYub0LiL1JSQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSBPR01MB4824 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposed Liaison to ISOC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 01:56:30 -0000 Hello Eliot, Apart from the comments that others have already made, two specific comments below. On 03/10/2020 02:23, Eliot Lear wrote: > Colleagues, > —— > > Dear Trustees, > > The RFC Future Development Program of the IAB has a proposal before us about having the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) play a role in the RFC Series future.[1] In particular, the proposal would have the BoT select and possibly replace chairs for a committee that oversees the successor to the role of he 'he' -> 'the' > RFC Series Editor (perhaps called the RFC Series Advisor). It would also have the Board of Trustees serve as the terminus of the appeals chain for any disputes about consensus. Another proposal asks the IAB to take on these responsibilities. > > In order for us to proceed with discussion about this topic, we would appreciate the views of the BoT about whether you believe you would be in a position to take on these responsibilities, should the program prefer that option. I think the phrase 'should the program prefer that option' might need some rewording. It may sound as if the program is the final point of decision, but I think that's not the case. Regards, Martin. From nobody Sat Oct 3 12:08:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6FE3A0A26 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hpo5mErFRnS9 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8746E3A0A22 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86844BE2C; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:08:30 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JGgpWtebbVR; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:08:28 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6176BE24; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:08:28 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1601752108; bh=OWq5LnAPwPueoFtgVlK34ylfaXY5NMfuC3kriGu8BkA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=p7QTwfd4BTsib88vLLOwhsEn6Jd9GxH+7WfpCGpNkGJfk1YeJXnuZxHYiuf3/CT/e nqbxPlZub/ET0aT3Bphzbi0Lym4ZY9N7FUxZDlslZxIcjFiH45smfyQhuY6Ah1/Cqy 6eIrXX1O3lNbbckLPDnEe1XmGjs1v3Xpsle0w03k= To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> From: Stephen Farrell Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw== Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:08:28 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1nxFhJkycow9JRCOCDuDTx5EsWePF04TU" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:08:36 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --1nxFhJkycow9JRCOCDuDTx5EsWePF04TU Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="7mUy7WHEcY1cndUFdP9shnBci6uympK3O"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> --7mUy7WHEcY1cndUFdP9shnBci6uympK3O Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4D5FAC32E91CB8AA4DE47D03" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4D5FAC32E91CB8AA4DE47D03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, On 02/10/2020 18:11, Eliot Lear wrote: >=20 > This is the next issue in our list. Please state views. I would like the person to be an expert in technical publishing. If we got that pro-bono that'd be fine. Paying for some of that person's time seems reasonable though. I'm not sure that this ought be a full-time role. I don't have a strong opinion as to what %FTE is right, but probably something like 30-50% seems reasonable. Cheers, S. PS: Sending this and my issue12 mail before reading other folks messages on those - be interested to find out with whom I (dis)agree:-) >=20 > Eliot >=20 --------------4D5FAC32E91CB8AA4DE47D03 Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nem CP5PMvmh5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kT q0IqYzsEv5HI58S+QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtE gvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKrEMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy +pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZUbUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5 iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqOVz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9 to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJgb097ZaNyuY1ETghV B5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k4LyM2lp5 FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9t lyWxn5XiHzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQAB tCFTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgPHN0ZXBoZW5AamVsbC5pZT6JAj0EEwEIACcFAlo9 UYwCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQWrL68XsXK+qG CxAApYHWYgGOIL3G6/OpkejdAkQoCVQAK8LJUSf6vzwost4iVfxIKcKW/3RqKNKk rRl8beJ7j1CWXAz9+VXAOsE9+zNxXIDgGA7HlvJnhffl+qwibVgiHgUcJFhCSbBr sjC+1uULaTU8zYEyET//GOGPLF+X+degkE/sesh4zcEAjF7fGPnlncdCCH3tvPZZ sdTcjwOCRVonKsDgQzBTCMz/RPBfEFX44HZx4g1UQAcCA4xlucY8QkJEyCrSNGpG nvGK8DcGSmnstl1/a9fnlhpdFxieX3oY2phJ1WKkYTn6Advrek3UP71CKxpgtPmk d3iUUz/VZa0Cv6YxQXskspRDVEvdCMYSQBtJPQ4y2+5UxVR9GIQXenwYp9AP2niv Voh+ITsDWWeWnnvYMq07rSDjq0nGdj41MJkNX+Yb2PXVyXItcj5ybE3T2+y3pSBG FEZYJGuaL4NwtBJFMOdOtBmUOPbetS2971EL3Izxb7ibOZWDwexv+8R6SWYfP1wV N3p46RyBQuXqJV8ccE11m6vtZTGSYgnLUUFZMRQYH+0hwuYe0T3AA18xDdSYsa8v ovCCd3l5S4UNzIM2PMChqGrEzKapUpZg7+8ACcxRU3b9Ihd7WYjJ+pQPCoWYKozv tEvenbNpE/govO/ED3B14e+R2yevRPjRrsN7PJzSf15fQLuJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9 UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLrSwf+MIHbFRQ4O5cmLYR5sIByWelN3SuRN/gW8rpKo9Ok Cz6An8uV/iCXy5tNMLzzi0BFl8f22DwBcC5qy9qnlIAdogWam1qWoTAoAD8veEqm uKhYrqJsCcAyNrKYmK0hP3rpHxx1LySDmKYXmw/8qtBXKHTouMm+5tSsznhykRMT AAr2p7PSaHgo+hIVaW/rKSspHjDhhZS+G9mtOZad1IH29M6G1Q1NCO0Ywe8krKLQ IAQlFxtgvOqpPOZNzeKBa/+KbE8TGgMWrkOhC8OeEM5PVzdDhlhD9kPzB/pCKDF5 DofJ/ZRqnDpbKPQ0bsW38AOig3kOc0A27awiBEw3urqR1YkCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4X CgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJbtyScAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSI/oP/0A9J9nrnBMq Zpm857lfYWw+rshLK+tyeP4OQeOqnDFvs9jePpcyJLG3DF2r6VbVKPQq+AE6Uf5h cJBDEN6BjEhRPSbLcqG3A1cz/nNwm8rPmNp+oKhmaBBQGxwciMLmzgynsDydnjPp MyEs04zvsbsl4vrp2095o105l8KcrrxQrioFjbwveGwHQK9bxJKhx9D+gIk+MouB ur45UDKTZkMZrr9FGrtkyXCGAxvKdcNC5Oa8z9sj1rcUJfG/OpVAMWhArdlZbFUQ yoX6pU2Zb1CR2qpWAVerGSfBhmfCyStjARqaKxlftjO+Bj3Jj73Cr5eqej3qB5+V 4BCsPjr4RLvVbYUCPsRdxWc+nBLlfVYkRURu21g1hFm5KFPjgUkyo1s4vjUOY8Dy I+xLGF7f/IhUBG6l+Vswhpwu7ydalZkeFiPx5xna5NfbEYxvsIf71DvipGvIOaHv X4egWoFgm8n/9c3rcMxJtpwHPSsUt5dgLsyu6VE0IbvOAc3dN7CWJ355DVFJq9Zg 2YVf0izSpyyzJeGsgkfjW6xpmdvZxuT2UcN4BTcm6vYqueASGrb3lfhzC5gpeVsc /MoSjTS65vNWbpzONZWMZuLEFraxWJzC0JrDK3NCd0VN3kstqGkVbUIiYOnUm8Vu 4zoVMLlGWzHLIGoPRG2nRezn1YyNfyb5iQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8 pK1gE7QL/ApC5P68W5DrI1787WJVZv1u4t/g39vTr7Xer3UMTVQg10vpa7pmqOGh jIDzDMg3Pe3K3M7fVzfAlUA1qw6ne4RCueVoRKpubeF4AlYbMr0K6hNCPjt5uAxm bBVuejKTc6pru5rv5gKL0nDbr+Snft5xt7juBLSSimw0/41sZnkjCxo9rF/RA/v6 +uWyK171RKmsEYu8fFtw1eqUNt/Xj792TUixE3pxXheNtQtZGk/9P3W83ChhG4Fh 5EQsn0pIh9wZIAbMRLpgRKyW87fWHZC8/YH8h7afarvn9Thl5pFUldCe22mNJj6K LChn2aEHQd+PdY1GBpZEcmNEUPuovwzatM0h64hCzTm41eDqRfihZVBT7TbfXQnv 8rywa42Mk756RGzzEZcQEhwQXZcMQUfxIQQ2VyJo0zG36VdZTQF7TF/4Lz7/3cJ5 6jOIm+dwPXtu+C2wAQuD4USOLt4JWPYpqzDfHYJIND/497P9Z9SuQeahr2ez3DRB g3qsHEjBV7QyU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsICgyMDE3KSA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJyZWxs QGNzLnRjZC5pZT6JAkAEEwEIACoCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwEC HgECF4AFAlo+o3cCGQEACgkQWrL68XsXK+qO0A//ZsfQzyXrZlu/eEV5jU620yeO M3P7SW3C3UQYdCgZ/TlvxGgKow5oDSXgjMiUyq9csGqbPBxlDYSxFZHNeDVKYIuP 2ZK24tw5k6duTh4+sFwUualTMlcp0zBCIzn3hRcsRvuPKHfl5+6oOi0+xqx3jX/s /69L/fvHmdSKet5LIUAxoYaZkTCruFrPWb01tgAl5JExWkhmCY98iD+EeiIMAWBj Mw1xV+p0uCwNbN6XDzcToK7wsm+tAIiWUy3DpP60a6WbVwdV0HNt2WZq5U5Jdh2k 4S+sN2CnYk4tTW7jHjsWarV3FLISCOObADZuB7ljU4kYfdwZ+WzenXY4LGlxGQSl AblGjwZe4EIkCXAJUtzJhoFUuGaF/PlWjxqV3UFRcgTERZTijguVyREre8GNERNg vDxZvuXssEjvz9X5JfcIZDIJpdzhLiEIj9noUbfx1SzB5KDPQj0O7elMHa1671/r wWcpGr/MfVPTOik4H7F8rcVJelceZTzC4tvya7M+jM4fyFWWt8Y4atTixUiP7U9o 4uBZCQ0GzvsmFA4XLqn2pA5rVizMXnGbGOjufAP/efEJ4ul3qvjYe8ye8DXEDjKA xo/tuHYtk19XCi83QzFhWls5TT+XQeVTMEvVqo9Wek8yoxo67qvLKKqIcG9givQd 8MxYNAbNYgSPtkbhZ8SJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLzHAgAlWT6 NXEGtw/r1miKNGcopzvzILQ9oB8rKI9U9EL6tOf/y2V5oYee/GyQDb3ZdoPxxYYc Jf+RyiH1nMoqUIZiZJaf3bJXinDZ5+AdfE++UR2NBvqaNyC6u3r24jo1B/sagKbY tWgsYtRqHLD4IWi37MZrVyjBuF7u14Q07+uhjq6mX2O/tHpCYw/Q82tbeTRPyUf1 WQOAfD1kfBpW9PvAva5Iw9FWeXpCXRzwxnCZhYfGfqtuSw6CPBYLdbikqML6FZ7E DuTBb/8um1wK7Y9bgeIQC+CYjhYB5RXa1tDJRab2Js4luCvSR0w/CgHw26293tlv e2Q6UTrmHxP5U22DlokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1QMgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkK CwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6tJpD/4rrILH+meP07vrx8wW5eYuqCiP GYnh/CXxIF8eLrfbe5d4QRgtq+w6UeQPMyzKRIRiCoBXB2oJLBZHyxBPxZlg33dT MrEGn8QWKx2iNuz9rZMXyOSWFetuO01d/aUPd5BnbLbIyK5of8xCQlXM6KH8bc+9 gQ7edR9mfLTdvBf2FR522hg8BRBM1imKc3vO8v39+qIHHRjuiwxBBCAOhHtHRsZX ripS0uFA07dM46Oi/E8osjx6fQt/lH5z/PN+2adxYSrLSAXfr1oD3RxYNhuWgyGF L64/VCQb1YGjf0Z5MBPnWm9jgUoOY5K9eNSS0L83WeJjlF5+Q/WOgB+rb49Prm2D Feo9+S9f2V53Llz1WIspXJg6f+n9lmHE94MfQj1GAHCzI0FeL19lvM+LhD8jJSCb hrC3+yobyy/AUOs5Z3E+njjX1FF/VCVAs6iOa6i+XG+Y1hh3ir2y1kckJ5auT10M SU8GEZu9ayU4M3o3N9yxOjaoP0NuQ4MMLL/n/u4u94AeZaHPNBXn/hVfVRRmpRXt GKvJtFAEppGEYezB+bLKIm6XlpPkhnwYzleLZ7AMEco2C6QM8QPB3g3JpS3sqRhA 5rEP4lL16BmijmF+CHoPE/zwgKZbKpyVDqvIW5IDgvfIC2X4pbZDRvGIUKaGSB4+ ksZgUUnNyvfQr2p7jokCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJb tySbAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSeKkQAJm44jt1kwHgQgeDBKdjdvl0AjE0xVEQxriZ6lP/ l//34YT0auFfzsYIrChSpQXAEtobBAr4Ohw1Us+BZe+H5P8vm6LRuPwozC3SjwfX 4Iec8+9ot6tIVg4sbedDSgb/CCFVjsmIGcQ1P73JLJTBJ6mxYCV/gn3QC6bwDOFo 7kD9FDHCjRN8XfhHQ4Q9cYyt06uF31qG/aumgWYC9geCGgAwiHgwxNYb9GoJ0iZj CROwbYvLTcQgsVUW2bTmsVR13UVKDsdl02sRV7qcVYW6R0a3Ra8KudX+nt25H5DR Gd382KZ5W8pydsy/viTvD9z6v0ulChBYxAedIvGIClrhbxlLEPmIg4ImVOLGqsUg Vm32J95WOjEkk4PEZ12xSDBtwhSJqmJNboWlfmw43KdIbY8zNhffIO3N6O7FsdGx mqyHeLoTpqY+ySVUPpbuyW8ujnI/J//+6hdTZ9dQsEJQlWngKuWOQ5ma58MPSN88 zllsqhZAFQjNxqnkSzL6ZQ+v/jvuRRe16B80AeO55DsmbWsMv/YLLD1mSi7+Khy2 EtMBhgojWwrGMvdLN6X3mnzNJEscYyLxM9tSk+iySP2sLthK0BVgpAzBSdaf/ezI z60P+neHDzteNFf8Mn7lmgYk1amvZoJ29s5+n2HwxyRL5dVMyMdyQmntubbctfqr Z0tIiQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gnCYMAJY4FeIYjlIXGghFWzsB 4fYwK1+iaFpU3fSto5qcrqVtVPjXpwqczqBWeXGyQxiB0kan4OVAXydIeaP8EAuF CA7paP3s9STLJBO3KurkwyRkPW5zo0X7xVqaVToRsX2Ul98KVJoHYQD1KdezEtwl vpNwiiBr42AYR751Vm6JBVAbQXuFpB3c8bUV0OkkRxNFtL8/2PieHar58n5dntGk bPlPkztahsFqktgacIgXHX5vaT+7YeeZ1DWLOYjGO0wNhkOSeroCmxwJUikU7joB p823L7r5KfpqWTPpSCzVstQKZUGmmoE1qCswY/Ud5wvp9SccpIILkRXj0rZRtfnE 5MpL3hjmtNzfDd9qIsJtBJlSB2hZwAsVm1l+EWN9hG3tqyA43niUMy2n6q690of3 berSiQ+kvY/aC9Hx8I+bKzOV9/J2VUTqfaPZa4Uy2rVX5Q2p69n/PMj7mEer0rCL 3j9V16J9c+s0BSkXoKdtYdB0TWVhBgUybd9qtYcwHWvhP7QuU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJy ZWxsIDxzdGVwaGVuQHRvbGVyYW50bmV0d29ya3MuY29tPokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1R WgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6jsc EADEcB0WQEZn2AkrzDs1RhL0Lp6cZi0BigofkbcGfdhJyMSs19C0dhvncrAFClVI 6/Udw3yFtDyYtOCf2W3M3A1K6/RfEizCLzTsdFIhni9gOJLlUpXViQtgrlstjk7h qVV3Ooz4BlCqS4cG7rfqf4LQQPpTAuFUEV9I28FBUB2irqC+v4gTysIgpMw0bA1y BU9sX5jE/tRkzqnuzZrkwiobDtRFJ9qp+7O2JtcY4EsVtLAsaodJKc5cF8R4OvB1 n66vxxcgg9Eh4JNWZ47xsaCmAGo1Bcb2jIY35OtgAL7gCGLRSMKTtAaPy1/fEgIq hCljJ9x40Fkn/3r2BX21WC9HFSPFTBz2RluLRzxdgxOrkYK8EiHUPoE5b1AEzZKw 2AbeXfr57f5zYsN3IqfbQLUjMYtUN1wK3Pjb+idD972wyXMWt8uOzlI7b9Ocu+nY m2whBfJv9Pmp3QYTmPz+LB9lH65VNVUSxSXVr5iWXO3qx1HtEiGEqkporMQCTh3T 5Ud3PvMSRBFFKNs9WhJ/Lxz+SV30WLwG6dr5mQqlzAhb4Phc/zekZyXRdS/oDKrB LUucS36O//49JeyRi1QvOfxnfmIqRIAf/k3PoYJmTo5E82//r5Qj3YGlRu78ba0H Arxs+ACD6AnEHHcbswpbtVEKYzlSu0Ar0Dc7vRWM/IyQdIkBHAQQAQgABgUCWj1S oAAKCRAvPIc2gF+NosIsB/9f/29FNla3BJfGIEIDnhrqGD0i9bSa89SqBd++uG06 TQgW5wsqtNcrwn81yZTq6XE6i9VtD4GKfqC0d4KZJr9bnbeD81cI64VOdL8zJWJs 0vj5EIXCobKyX74Kb4uePUyZqwT2Q74I116u/HwA9/FXsPo5isbh4ZqD4t0VHpWk mfq1FPT9a/JPyX46qKqB2Fce/7Qy+SQP1NfkuUlbhUH/JG9aSSYvk3lznNiH41x9 M+FDlL106itXOubrl3oi2fT3fsSedq7uzt+IV0DQEeNaoQAUuwEhdB8IWOMqN2wo DjGVKJftfsSWY9ilZrnDBNDrp0vRqcx33LUMkIw4d7iBiQIzBBABCAAdFiEEfhcK BFyEz0YOK3mgEO952f2DUxIFAlu3JJwACgkQEO952f2DUxJjuw/6ApHSsVTWD4a0 H6FJ23A9Ftpy+aXZ4vYlzkSrfsn2ECrEfK3lXQh/uzwjJUDYZeB1/BQsFZtcYNQO JSSHbQ49BFRLwb1J/wBZG4bbmrkLxnNbKDKQvzxEpclkMW0Dj0J6o7kGrmzIGGrh B+JJN99AcineHRug8ZSFIERRCmigxdhAKU0BFD7P+5HNHltSL3DF1c2fFOf2JrgB KVoE+9RhMZjWNbYetFFLCkjXb5Rpay9zeMm1DxfSTGAnuOwUXW6qq4hnl5+VC/48 ceDZElLLfu7RQUZv44pkSTOWZs+iQoJiHMFHk9wPqyB2Vok1yJ2a2j27WhXrJlPw nZbgJO5RyWDG3p/eVmpl5Uuc2dsfIpR17KnAuWpghK6V+cyFncDoGCl/YG2Mvool sW08FiZh3Ej4dnJjj25TZkeFG74JJDXLvMYpJfSBGnmETv4Dhcm2xPqVMuFuL1qJ lMbVLrMo2GXeo03OzNyvbs+u8WLIaGm5hC7N1CXY8wZs4jo6OJ/expvnc07dEuws 4zT3AiWv3nIouWReRStZy9QkavDocqbyPmilcdPCYk4BsOlzpwwO74hNG7iyl0Kd AlwTxGQ7y0rJou6HYa1TmRhIEr3vKvlW+JfUUrqtjXgsuacTXo4+Ira2JUErL2cY zQMq1j4r1ZyhFnuz93s7Rsx/Nw0+0YuJAZwEEAEKAAYFAlvFx+UACgkQajsROTyk rWCJqwv+NLVPE4sD4sDA2/6Ek7UsRIUkg+S39fhqWsLc4rtw/mDunv8Un61I3K04 fZ2Ry4nF9hZM0a710UvXFbStvrzRJO3EAAcdJR9LTCd19e8UeruQbIee3YT91U4N kC9JMpecfq62/teOAU2e5P3fWYaLs5ZX7zCLwWuBcW2l3SyoljQczM85HhJ3XHm+ FnwQ6D9xRle+lvWTcuC9d1yAyUb8IOospcL2lJTmy8e3r79R24hPlSB4LDe0wEN8 AXbagrcAQZjwyaHyWxjJbTwZ0b43WGdfIqZ1ElOeoffbketPGRmWvx5xUvb2ALFB BdETzV270gs5XDJgJ1SIIKOyDADxwvroTe2jD8C/841eEql5QSow3s/U3zRqk3mt tto8Qw/DN71aeh6dmYSsvd2UjsHw/vofOPRBGxZLEkKTEvMnhmMW9hiKPkPia+Qg evYE020qpKSxLEdWA8nprHwxmGiDNesCfXSC6vm1qfyj5g8HzxSckq9ZaMhKMCo7 vxflUEDuuQINBFo9UDIBEAD6DdHQfMav8OXfhjTteoarOrlJTSdci727xiezGPuB HmpvceBRZgRasdbaMc4HJee+R9+5x/nLPCuy/DxDyIjwIUeJNgc+l7LjI9WfpHTD 8U4xxjvR5Mi7+ToQQUOUNuzT0O0pyuxP1uY3RehHEhOVfBZO59ipSeZL5iQC6T5M sK1SKfs51pLa5ToC1rc8tBJ4zZmxRAyZiYc/AH2uZ/6rYjTTkAn1DVI9DYo2D/zE 4bGjXdJW5pKphFB2lX3dG4I7ODi+5e1H6A/QpCu6z8/ZkIQ+9T1xcX/YwiFeA7Pb TuW/eITbMbI1eV3+fyym9aT7Rsflmp31Zxtr+sZwGGZf00ooMBFmqOS//NUQ/Vf3 vDUew1h5QU1yDaWT3NApvi+XWPH9TPy6TMfZA2FThHf11sX/gDBa5JWQZbptPEcm oazpiKZt91CrFPOaoXDPck/Q61dfmr/oPikfByYnASIM3OwEuXqyQ9JDRfKrem5r +oA/wxWb5jELElAhOpnyqMMvOh7uz1foUssL8MAv2TGXmxpVJ8Nu4je6wf96Z22f Q0D38zud+CKH3bMP3ayXXJBcdPoENrzFbWP5FTg/4TTDJ3vOAHZR5iCunYghx8b7 Ffa4UbkwlD+dh8GiIAtvT51Ac0cO0Wc0Zjc57zPUz1zloMbf+zb1Bsn7DuEQoqj1 gwARAQABiQIlBBgBCAAPBQJaPVAyAhsMBQkJlCYAAAoJEFqy+vF7FyvqrC8P/1tF 6TeR83xD6MasqXyrBjwcLmziaF0Mlkj8k/YUiZ/knb53n97xQnh9yxPv0TT8Wpfd n3BmvqGyh8+ouHX9jMOxiRkMdNhIauVYY/8jmRfBSYWcFkfMzdYasvdLtmYJgx25 2HKTFdeOrszoOjWjEzwmh+tca3AFMu/nB++/KAmi5UJV7zsZ7uYJ5jm97LV5SLjN JIXXM+lHqCDrjDaDhNczmq1LCRlU6/WDjvkuwaVhZG4lXxMDrvKnXMkjseQ2oKjw rIdfQM86H1z5J31lfhqop+of0cimcIsBgSCPu+h96LHuAzeRBCbDKeqrfZtAZAGs okRina9947fRWxXHh3O66ILmXKNRxxWbDkPvYnQWUat8SbSTDoPWrDIGDRIAypqY o3pcN2OE0C1chqgDZQxkr+9kYZQpupOAN2TR+fM7JvbO9coKI8Uqog8CopoMeDQk d0YjcqlB1E0svODHTzcSoRzogDBYDqNLP7qVkNXpcOAXSVioBgiSDf7o5RdS/qmU yXBIeq6I5z8xBcd+BQ/n/9Frkm6K7IKP3ngUP4wEoiPx5ZE5+fPIScGmVUcZIMhk vMvem9XXh1yyhqN14gfjmLwPGdWbrgG8QUe0s2WeWIyss6uTiyF+ZbJSo2XOKVc3 YFMVUUfgyudqAV1wWdZinUk+H3pkqOKoHAy/8fST =3DYzQY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------4D5FAC32E91CB8AA4DE47D03-- --7mUy7WHEcY1cndUFdP9shnBci6uympK3O-- --1nxFhJkycow9JRCOCDuDTx5EsWePF04TU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEW7Wm6ldl0sWGPK4nWrL68XsXK+oFAl94zCwACgkQWrL68XsX K+owrw//S8U6VFBRAHVoldU4x/UcwJW0mT35ac1FAWTugA1dykbvqFXFCLtPxmkJ ZuwbM9S/O3A5m7wpS1XoM+1403gL3SQXPdu+0b7Nb3vCIPQkChCLPM+yxcsxzKyw eygi76rXckUl7KcLPJB26A1gYMgNYSr04lmpUj3ohhGuvFSoNhcZ3sCjLxGJP7XV oSamMFlGB2KAVAk23xFZyDr1ZiT9Hy7JoZZi6LfDttKN8wNRBKTPZNa0cdpbk450 OgEmykTTC/6QyONZNnG2oDV1lZiqFy7il46+jAYoppKN+Oa8Qjd/RKMe/+hSmm/F OriMmEcIalRL1fl0c9rEZ5uN4h+T9s9WxYCGSG2NqPswNK+uUHCprjI+eWIus7CV x7cZxNmimnOXLXyXL0I86Seio6GvIdK7OX1Hl4He3sbcJADcDAMr/MWWc5jMgIPx iYvIe/q3zGu/ZPdn1y5XcDOwCVEE4CYjESKkcoDhkpUMbkntKJTXhf/nY8q+Ddbr V1Yw90mJGBHa361P/Ug66wVrDnyUOTS1rpEe7+mVRZgm3jtYEfrllrDxDnyJ9MLi jHg+FAhDFCaf9sYNK9WY3wDSWrZVHwQKm2LNCPO+qR8s4mVnqaUKmOzsjSpzwbuh gE1uUGh73FGHxEkbE6bj6UPuHGfyC96989tKdYlFignwg0RHsK0= =OC7l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1nxFhJkycow9JRCOCDuDTx5EsWePF04TU-- From nobody Sat Oct 3 12:14:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A383A00C3 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:14:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.212 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YoBYpbcgq8mC for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D691F3A0061 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C8CBE2E; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:14:43 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DB2mawrXUm1s; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:14:42 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01419BE24; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:14:41 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1601752482; bh=Z66S5Ie6IBrSXxFVOoWv1CZyqUIPnDajJIRtrYy5kgw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=vrm20czXqzxRWZlzwrIZtvd74d2cUTim2Vb3X2rPLo7NdcELJ2/JNLijWCIwnrPef SGbqzWn20Kz0Fll9C+qa71Xr+Bjet+/ciE5I1Oxn9ASmfnFoX0e5ig6ucboorgTdwe 4Uo8Qv5zgbjlsAxA9gPdMDWn94tDquBplhGjxTrs= To: Brian E Carpenter , adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Joel M. Halpern'" , 'Eliot Lear' , rfced-future@iab.org References: <011601d698f3$4e1237e0$ea36a7a0$@olddog.co.uk> From: Stephen Farrell Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw== Message-ID: <5d85375e-3fc9-2206-736e-5b33459f72d6@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:14:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0zRtmWCz3HGxIkUslK2sBLIMq5juCRlG9" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:14:48 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0zRtmWCz3HGxIkUslK2sBLIMq5juCRlG9 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="sEXfrL09SYviI0lydGLiRNBSpdpvUj1Pi"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Brian E Carpenter , adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Joel M. Halpern'" , 'Eliot Lear' , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: <5d85375e-3fc9-2206-736e-5b33459f72d6@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) References: <011601d698f3$4e1237e0$ea36a7a0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: --sEXfrL09SYviI0lydGLiRNBSpdpvUj1Pi Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A3218A503DF9C62F37096BBC" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A3218A503DF9C62F37096BBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To clarify: On 02/10/2020 21:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > the LLC -- and *only* > the LLC -- should be responsible for line management. I very much agree with this but forgot to say it in my other mail. Whatever decisions an RSx might have in their power, handling RPC folks' vacation forms and expenses etc. all ought be managed by the LLC (likely via someone the LLC has contracted for RPC services as in the current case). Cheers, S. --------------A3218A503DF9C62F37096BBC Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nem CP5PMvmh5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kT q0IqYzsEv5HI58S+QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtE gvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKrEMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy +pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZUbUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5 iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqOVz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9 to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJgb097ZaNyuY1ETghV B5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k4LyM2lp5 FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9t lyWxn5XiHzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQAB tCFTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgPHN0ZXBoZW5AamVsbC5pZT6JAj0EEwEIACcFAlo9 UYwCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQWrL68XsXK+qG CxAApYHWYgGOIL3G6/OpkejdAkQoCVQAK8LJUSf6vzwost4iVfxIKcKW/3RqKNKk rRl8beJ7j1CWXAz9+VXAOsE9+zNxXIDgGA7HlvJnhffl+qwibVgiHgUcJFhCSbBr sjC+1uULaTU8zYEyET//GOGPLF+X+degkE/sesh4zcEAjF7fGPnlncdCCH3tvPZZ sdTcjwOCRVonKsDgQzBTCMz/RPBfEFX44HZx4g1UQAcCA4xlucY8QkJEyCrSNGpG nvGK8DcGSmnstl1/a9fnlhpdFxieX3oY2phJ1WKkYTn6Advrek3UP71CKxpgtPmk d3iUUz/VZa0Cv6YxQXskspRDVEvdCMYSQBtJPQ4y2+5UxVR9GIQXenwYp9AP2niv Voh+ITsDWWeWnnvYMq07rSDjq0nGdj41MJkNX+Yb2PXVyXItcj5ybE3T2+y3pSBG FEZYJGuaL4NwtBJFMOdOtBmUOPbetS2971EL3Izxb7ibOZWDwexv+8R6SWYfP1wV N3p46RyBQuXqJV8ccE11m6vtZTGSYgnLUUFZMRQYH+0hwuYe0T3AA18xDdSYsa8v ovCCd3l5S4UNzIM2PMChqGrEzKapUpZg7+8ACcxRU3b9Ihd7WYjJ+pQPCoWYKozv tEvenbNpE/govO/ED3B14e+R2yevRPjRrsN7PJzSf15fQLuJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9 UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLrSwf+MIHbFRQ4O5cmLYR5sIByWelN3SuRN/gW8rpKo9Ok Cz6An8uV/iCXy5tNMLzzi0BFl8f22DwBcC5qy9qnlIAdogWam1qWoTAoAD8veEqm uKhYrqJsCcAyNrKYmK0hP3rpHxx1LySDmKYXmw/8qtBXKHTouMm+5tSsznhykRMT AAr2p7PSaHgo+hIVaW/rKSspHjDhhZS+G9mtOZad1IH29M6G1Q1NCO0Ywe8krKLQ IAQlFxtgvOqpPOZNzeKBa/+KbE8TGgMWrkOhC8OeEM5PVzdDhlhD9kPzB/pCKDF5 DofJ/ZRqnDpbKPQ0bsW38AOig3kOc0A27awiBEw3urqR1YkCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4X CgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJbtyScAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSI/oP/0A9J9nrnBMq Zpm857lfYWw+rshLK+tyeP4OQeOqnDFvs9jePpcyJLG3DF2r6VbVKPQq+AE6Uf5h cJBDEN6BjEhRPSbLcqG3A1cz/nNwm8rPmNp+oKhmaBBQGxwciMLmzgynsDydnjPp MyEs04zvsbsl4vrp2095o105l8KcrrxQrioFjbwveGwHQK9bxJKhx9D+gIk+MouB ur45UDKTZkMZrr9FGrtkyXCGAxvKdcNC5Oa8z9sj1rcUJfG/OpVAMWhArdlZbFUQ yoX6pU2Zb1CR2qpWAVerGSfBhmfCyStjARqaKxlftjO+Bj3Jj73Cr5eqej3qB5+V 4BCsPjr4RLvVbYUCPsRdxWc+nBLlfVYkRURu21g1hFm5KFPjgUkyo1s4vjUOY8Dy I+xLGF7f/IhUBG6l+Vswhpwu7ydalZkeFiPx5xna5NfbEYxvsIf71DvipGvIOaHv X4egWoFgm8n/9c3rcMxJtpwHPSsUt5dgLsyu6VE0IbvOAc3dN7CWJ355DVFJq9Zg 2YVf0izSpyyzJeGsgkfjW6xpmdvZxuT2UcN4BTcm6vYqueASGrb3lfhzC5gpeVsc /MoSjTS65vNWbpzONZWMZuLEFraxWJzC0JrDK3NCd0VN3kstqGkVbUIiYOnUm8Vu 4zoVMLlGWzHLIGoPRG2nRezn1YyNfyb5iQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8 pK1gE7QL/ApC5P68W5DrI1787WJVZv1u4t/g39vTr7Xer3UMTVQg10vpa7pmqOGh jIDzDMg3Pe3K3M7fVzfAlUA1qw6ne4RCueVoRKpubeF4AlYbMr0K6hNCPjt5uAxm bBVuejKTc6pru5rv5gKL0nDbr+Snft5xt7juBLSSimw0/41sZnkjCxo9rF/RA/v6 +uWyK171RKmsEYu8fFtw1eqUNt/Xj792TUixE3pxXheNtQtZGk/9P3W83ChhG4Fh 5EQsn0pIh9wZIAbMRLpgRKyW87fWHZC8/YH8h7afarvn9Thl5pFUldCe22mNJj6K LChn2aEHQd+PdY1GBpZEcmNEUPuovwzatM0h64hCzTm41eDqRfihZVBT7TbfXQnv 8rywa42Mk756RGzzEZcQEhwQXZcMQUfxIQQ2VyJo0zG36VdZTQF7TF/4Lz7/3cJ5 6jOIm+dwPXtu+C2wAQuD4USOLt4JWPYpqzDfHYJIND/497P9Z9SuQeahr2ez3DRB g3qsHEjBV7QyU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsICgyMDE3KSA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJyZWxs QGNzLnRjZC5pZT6JAkAEEwEIACoCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwEC HgECF4AFAlo+o3cCGQEACgkQWrL68XsXK+qO0A//ZsfQzyXrZlu/eEV5jU620yeO M3P7SW3C3UQYdCgZ/TlvxGgKow5oDSXgjMiUyq9csGqbPBxlDYSxFZHNeDVKYIuP 2ZK24tw5k6duTh4+sFwUualTMlcp0zBCIzn3hRcsRvuPKHfl5+6oOi0+xqx3jX/s /69L/fvHmdSKet5LIUAxoYaZkTCruFrPWb01tgAl5JExWkhmCY98iD+EeiIMAWBj Mw1xV+p0uCwNbN6XDzcToK7wsm+tAIiWUy3DpP60a6WbVwdV0HNt2WZq5U5Jdh2k 4S+sN2CnYk4tTW7jHjsWarV3FLISCOObADZuB7ljU4kYfdwZ+WzenXY4LGlxGQSl AblGjwZe4EIkCXAJUtzJhoFUuGaF/PlWjxqV3UFRcgTERZTijguVyREre8GNERNg vDxZvuXssEjvz9X5JfcIZDIJpdzhLiEIj9noUbfx1SzB5KDPQj0O7elMHa1671/r wWcpGr/MfVPTOik4H7F8rcVJelceZTzC4tvya7M+jM4fyFWWt8Y4atTixUiP7U9o 4uBZCQ0GzvsmFA4XLqn2pA5rVizMXnGbGOjufAP/efEJ4ul3qvjYe8ye8DXEDjKA xo/tuHYtk19XCi83QzFhWls5TT+XQeVTMEvVqo9Wek8yoxo67qvLKKqIcG9givQd 8MxYNAbNYgSPtkbhZ8SJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLzHAgAlWT6 NXEGtw/r1miKNGcopzvzILQ9oB8rKI9U9EL6tOf/y2V5oYee/GyQDb3ZdoPxxYYc Jf+RyiH1nMoqUIZiZJaf3bJXinDZ5+AdfE++UR2NBvqaNyC6u3r24jo1B/sagKbY tWgsYtRqHLD4IWi37MZrVyjBuF7u14Q07+uhjq6mX2O/tHpCYw/Q82tbeTRPyUf1 WQOAfD1kfBpW9PvAva5Iw9FWeXpCXRzwxnCZhYfGfqtuSw6CPBYLdbikqML6FZ7E DuTBb/8um1wK7Y9bgeIQC+CYjhYB5RXa1tDJRab2Js4luCvSR0w/CgHw26293tlv e2Q6UTrmHxP5U22DlokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1QMgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkK CwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6tJpD/4rrILH+meP07vrx8wW5eYuqCiP GYnh/CXxIF8eLrfbe5d4QRgtq+w6UeQPMyzKRIRiCoBXB2oJLBZHyxBPxZlg33dT MrEGn8QWKx2iNuz9rZMXyOSWFetuO01d/aUPd5BnbLbIyK5of8xCQlXM6KH8bc+9 gQ7edR9mfLTdvBf2FR522hg8BRBM1imKc3vO8v39+qIHHRjuiwxBBCAOhHtHRsZX ripS0uFA07dM46Oi/E8osjx6fQt/lH5z/PN+2adxYSrLSAXfr1oD3RxYNhuWgyGF L64/VCQb1YGjf0Z5MBPnWm9jgUoOY5K9eNSS0L83WeJjlF5+Q/WOgB+rb49Prm2D Feo9+S9f2V53Llz1WIspXJg6f+n9lmHE94MfQj1GAHCzI0FeL19lvM+LhD8jJSCb hrC3+yobyy/AUOs5Z3E+njjX1FF/VCVAs6iOa6i+XG+Y1hh3ir2y1kckJ5auT10M SU8GEZu9ayU4M3o3N9yxOjaoP0NuQ4MMLL/n/u4u94AeZaHPNBXn/hVfVRRmpRXt GKvJtFAEppGEYezB+bLKIm6XlpPkhnwYzleLZ7AMEco2C6QM8QPB3g3JpS3sqRhA 5rEP4lL16BmijmF+CHoPE/zwgKZbKpyVDqvIW5IDgvfIC2X4pbZDRvGIUKaGSB4+ ksZgUUnNyvfQr2p7jokCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJb tySbAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSeKkQAJm44jt1kwHgQgeDBKdjdvl0AjE0xVEQxriZ6lP/ l//34YT0auFfzsYIrChSpQXAEtobBAr4Ohw1Us+BZe+H5P8vm6LRuPwozC3SjwfX 4Iec8+9ot6tIVg4sbedDSgb/CCFVjsmIGcQ1P73JLJTBJ6mxYCV/gn3QC6bwDOFo 7kD9FDHCjRN8XfhHQ4Q9cYyt06uF31qG/aumgWYC9geCGgAwiHgwxNYb9GoJ0iZj CROwbYvLTcQgsVUW2bTmsVR13UVKDsdl02sRV7qcVYW6R0a3Ra8KudX+nt25H5DR Gd382KZ5W8pydsy/viTvD9z6v0ulChBYxAedIvGIClrhbxlLEPmIg4ImVOLGqsUg Vm32J95WOjEkk4PEZ12xSDBtwhSJqmJNboWlfmw43KdIbY8zNhffIO3N6O7FsdGx mqyHeLoTpqY+ySVUPpbuyW8ujnI/J//+6hdTZ9dQsEJQlWngKuWOQ5ma58MPSN88 zllsqhZAFQjNxqnkSzL6ZQ+v/jvuRRe16B80AeO55DsmbWsMv/YLLD1mSi7+Khy2 EtMBhgojWwrGMvdLN6X3mnzNJEscYyLxM9tSk+iySP2sLthK0BVgpAzBSdaf/ezI z60P+neHDzteNFf8Mn7lmgYk1amvZoJ29s5+n2HwxyRL5dVMyMdyQmntubbctfqr Z0tIiQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gnCYMAJY4FeIYjlIXGghFWzsB 4fYwK1+iaFpU3fSto5qcrqVtVPjXpwqczqBWeXGyQxiB0kan4OVAXydIeaP8EAuF CA7paP3s9STLJBO3KurkwyRkPW5zo0X7xVqaVToRsX2Ul98KVJoHYQD1KdezEtwl vpNwiiBr42AYR751Vm6JBVAbQXuFpB3c8bUV0OkkRxNFtL8/2PieHar58n5dntGk bPlPkztahsFqktgacIgXHX5vaT+7YeeZ1DWLOYjGO0wNhkOSeroCmxwJUikU7joB p823L7r5KfpqWTPpSCzVstQKZUGmmoE1qCswY/Ud5wvp9SccpIILkRXj0rZRtfnE 5MpL3hjmtNzfDd9qIsJtBJlSB2hZwAsVm1l+EWN9hG3tqyA43niUMy2n6q690of3 berSiQ+kvY/aC9Hx8I+bKzOV9/J2VUTqfaPZa4Uy2rVX5Q2p69n/PMj7mEer0rCL 3j9V16J9c+s0BSkXoKdtYdB0TWVhBgUybd9qtYcwHWvhP7QuU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJy ZWxsIDxzdGVwaGVuQHRvbGVyYW50bmV0d29ya3MuY29tPokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1R WgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6jsc EADEcB0WQEZn2AkrzDs1RhL0Lp6cZi0BigofkbcGfdhJyMSs19C0dhvncrAFClVI 6/Udw3yFtDyYtOCf2W3M3A1K6/RfEizCLzTsdFIhni9gOJLlUpXViQtgrlstjk7h qVV3Ooz4BlCqS4cG7rfqf4LQQPpTAuFUEV9I28FBUB2irqC+v4gTysIgpMw0bA1y BU9sX5jE/tRkzqnuzZrkwiobDtRFJ9qp+7O2JtcY4EsVtLAsaodJKc5cF8R4OvB1 n66vxxcgg9Eh4JNWZ47xsaCmAGo1Bcb2jIY35OtgAL7gCGLRSMKTtAaPy1/fEgIq hCljJ9x40Fkn/3r2BX21WC9HFSPFTBz2RluLRzxdgxOrkYK8EiHUPoE5b1AEzZKw 2AbeXfr57f5zYsN3IqfbQLUjMYtUN1wK3Pjb+idD972wyXMWt8uOzlI7b9Ocu+nY m2whBfJv9Pmp3QYTmPz+LB9lH65VNVUSxSXVr5iWXO3qx1HtEiGEqkporMQCTh3T 5Ud3PvMSRBFFKNs9WhJ/Lxz+SV30WLwG6dr5mQqlzAhb4Phc/zekZyXRdS/oDKrB LUucS36O//49JeyRi1QvOfxnfmIqRIAf/k3PoYJmTo5E82//r5Qj3YGlRu78ba0H Arxs+ACD6AnEHHcbswpbtVEKYzlSu0Ar0Dc7vRWM/IyQdIkBHAQQAQgABgUCWj1S oAAKCRAvPIc2gF+NosIsB/9f/29FNla3BJfGIEIDnhrqGD0i9bSa89SqBd++uG06 TQgW5wsqtNcrwn81yZTq6XE6i9VtD4GKfqC0d4KZJr9bnbeD81cI64VOdL8zJWJs 0vj5EIXCobKyX74Kb4uePUyZqwT2Q74I116u/HwA9/FXsPo5isbh4ZqD4t0VHpWk mfq1FPT9a/JPyX46qKqB2Fce/7Qy+SQP1NfkuUlbhUH/JG9aSSYvk3lznNiH41x9 M+FDlL106itXOubrl3oi2fT3fsSedq7uzt+IV0DQEeNaoQAUuwEhdB8IWOMqN2wo DjGVKJftfsSWY9ilZrnDBNDrp0vRqcx33LUMkIw4d7iBiQIzBBABCAAdFiEEfhcK BFyEz0YOK3mgEO952f2DUxIFAlu3JJwACgkQEO952f2DUxJjuw/6ApHSsVTWD4a0 H6FJ23A9Ftpy+aXZ4vYlzkSrfsn2ECrEfK3lXQh/uzwjJUDYZeB1/BQsFZtcYNQO JSSHbQ49BFRLwb1J/wBZG4bbmrkLxnNbKDKQvzxEpclkMW0Dj0J6o7kGrmzIGGrh B+JJN99AcineHRug8ZSFIERRCmigxdhAKU0BFD7P+5HNHltSL3DF1c2fFOf2JrgB KVoE+9RhMZjWNbYetFFLCkjXb5Rpay9zeMm1DxfSTGAnuOwUXW6qq4hnl5+VC/48 ceDZElLLfu7RQUZv44pkSTOWZs+iQoJiHMFHk9wPqyB2Vok1yJ2a2j27WhXrJlPw nZbgJO5RyWDG3p/eVmpl5Uuc2dsfIpR17KnAuWpghK6V+cyFncDoGCl/YG2Mvool sW08FiZh3Ej4dnJjj25TZkeFG74JJDXLvMYpJfSBGnmETv4Dhcm2xPqVMuFuL1qJ lMbVLrMo2GXeo03OzNyvbs+u8WLIaGm5hC7N1CXY8wZs4jo6OJ/expvnc07dEuws 4zT3AiWv3nIouWReRStZy9QkavDocqbyPmilcdPCYk4BsOlzpwwO74hNG7iyl0Kd AlwTxGQ7y0rJou6HYa1TmRhIEr3vKvlW+JfUUrqtjXgsuacTXo4+Ira2JUErL2cY zQMq1j4r1ZyhFnuz93s7Rsx/Nw0+0YuJAZwEEAEKAAYFAlvFx+UACgkQajsROTyk rWCJqwv+NLVPE4sD4sDA2/6Ek7UsRIUkg+S39fhqWsLc4rtw/mDunv8Un61I3K04 fZ2Ry4nF9hZM0a710UvXFbStvrzRJO3EAAcdJR9LTCd19e8UeruQbIee3YT91U4N kC9JMpecfq62/teOAU2e5P3fWYaLs5ZX7zCLwWuBcW2l3SyoljQczM85HhJ3XHm+ FnwQ6D9xRle+lvWTcuC9d1yAyUb8IOospcL2lJTmy8e3r79R24hPlSB4LDe0wEN8 AXbagrcAQZjwyaHyWxjJbTwZ0b43WGdfIqZ1ElOeoffbketPGRmWvx5xUvb2ALFB BdETzV270gs5XDJgJ1SIIKOyDADxwvroTe2jD8C/841eEql5QSow3s/U3zRqk3mt tto8Qw/DN71aeh6dmYSsvd2UjsHw/vofOPRBGxZLEkKTEvMnhmMW9hiKPkPia+Qg evYE020qpKSxLEdWA8nprHwxmGiDNesCfXSC6vm1qfyj5g8HzxSckq9ZaMhKMCo7 vxflUEDuuQINBFo9UDIBEAD6DdHQfMav8OXfhjTteoarOrlJTSdci727xiezGPuB HmpvceBRZgRasdbaMc4HJee+R9+5x/nLPCuy/DxDyIjwIUeJNgc+l7LjI9WfpHTD 8U4xxjvR5Mi7+ToQQUOUNuzT0O0pyuxP1uY3RehHEhOVfBZO59ipSeZL5iQC6T5M sK1SKfs51pLa5ToC1rc8tBJ4zZmxRAyZiYc/AH2uZ/6rYjTTkAn1DVI9DYo2D/zE 4bGjXdJW5pKphFB2lX3dG4I7ODi+5e1H6A/QpCu6z8/ZkIQ+9T1xcX/YwiFeA7Pb TuW/eITbMbI1eV3+fyym9aT7Rsflmp31Zxtr+sZwGGZf00ooMBFmqOS//NUQ/Vf3 vDUew1h5QU1yDaWT3NApvi+XWPH9TPy6TMfZA2FThHf11sX/gDBa5JWQZbptPEcm oazpiKZt91CrFPOaoXDPck/Q61dfmr/oPikfByYnASIM3OwEuXqyQ9JDRfKrem5r +oA/wxWb5jELElAhOpnyqMMvOh7uz1foUssL8MAv2TGXmxpVJ8Nu4je6wf96Z22f Q0D38zud+CKH3bMP3ayXXJBcdPoENrzFbWP5FTg/4TTDJ3vOAHZR5iCunYghx8b7 Ffa4UbkwlD+dh8GiIAtvT51Ac0cO0Wc0Zjc57zPUz1zloMbf+zb1Bsn7DuEQoqj1 gwARAQABiQIlBBgBCAAPBQJaPVAyAhsMBQkJlCYAAAoJEFqy+vF7FyvqrC8P/1tF 6TeR83xD6MasqXyrBjwcLmziaF0Mlkj8k/YUiZ/knb53n97xQnh9yxPv0TT8Wpfd n3BmvqGyh8+ouHX9jMOxiRkMdNhIauVYY/8jmRfBSYWcFkfMzdYasvdLtmYJgx25 2HKTFdeOrszoOjWjEzwmh+tca3AFMu/nB++/KAmi5UJV7zsZ7uYJ5jm97LV5SLjN JIXXM+lHqCDrjDaDhNczmq1LCRlU6/WDjvkuwaVhZG4lXxMDrvKnXMkjseQ2oKjw rIdfQM86H1z5J31lfhqop+of0cimcIsBgSCPu+h96LHuAzeRBCbDKeqrfZtAZAGs okRina9947fRWxXHh3O66ILmXKNRxxWbDkPvYnQWUat8SbSTDoPWrDIGDRIAypqY o3pcN2OE0C1chqgDZQxkr+9kYZQpupOAN2TR+fM7JvbO9coKI8Uqog8CopoMeDQk d0YjcqlB1E0svODHTzcSoRzogDBYDqNLP7qVkNXpcOAXSVioBgiSDf7o5RdS/qmU yXBIeq6I5z8xBcd+BQ/n/9Frkm6K7IKP3ngUP4wEoiPx5ZE5+fPIScGmVUcZIMhk vMvem9XXh1yyhqN14gfjmLwPGdWbrgG8QUe0s2WeWIyss6uTiyF+ZbJSo2XOKVc3 YFMVUUfgyudqAV1wWdZinUk+H3pkqOKoHAy/8fST =3DYzQY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------A3218A503DF9C62F37096BBC-- --sEXfrL09SYviI0lydGLiRNBSpdpvUj1Pi-- --0zRtmWCz3HGxIkUslK2sBLIMq5juCRlG9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEW7Wm6ldl0sWGPK4nWrL68XsXK+oFAl94zaEACgkQWrL68XsX K+oikg//ReU0hJIQYbmUXZxwfoGX46JZMu2u/RRGtKBMvNz618w7j3ZtU1IPybW1 KOJGICwzc9bmyMuG2EdbwV7ZrCL1jnGgvP0wCsBdOxutj+RWGz1pZ4ebTHkrpJgY lbsT1W1PqYx/sRwToJhRLIs4o/lVQ0E9Dq3s6zQTIguir7x4lBE9OLelMRrbB1mn 9KGK1h/HrJ+hdcNXTKQBh6wk9zjPeH56yinYX0e8z/3kgzyZs59thNM1TmsXPBVz zrYeaMMUevBY55z+jkOfp+rwXiEPUEmE9ZZyxO1bHzoLUQ1ElHUJ6B/GDnwqlGPV brZB4z+3tBCiRILlxGALRhTqdogbTjjP1IoDEmjqISBVFg9Qr8PaVsJKmSOxq6Es U6JB6x27MuQh01loybDEh2CYALU5/f7KU+qG+M4lbC/boNEtjcbBgh/hUARy0OoB bEGq4J+fbbj+ymmhBKXCpWG4qXU8dJHBDwwHKSrXU7nuAeyU/8EZbZ3C2RjHDSI8 RG3Lzn1QyssWPumtEk7wbWALiGS5f3IUv4vvpCfXnVWvWFjT4Uq52e8RLYCw3lKw 3NrorPG+VgSu6qsX6ztM8CKvj14Yh+R2472AodXfeJwrYyWuV8uTjAx6Tna/7VOD HLBLj7QesKkU34j+90k39c/ocW3oYYLxiZHTXLXhGSB0wCTZ9PU= =Y9/6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0zRtmWCz3HGxIkUslK2sBLIMq5juCRlG9-- From nobody Sat Oct 3 12:18:12 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0AE3A00C4 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:18:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kPFzg31R2lU for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 801F23A0061 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E17ABE2C; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:09:14 +0100 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XoEunjWEY2rj; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:09:12 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFB0EBE24; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:09:12 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1601752152; bh=o/w90+eeZwS4/hBP3kOeD0LdrOA+wr/4Dxu8JWEXk28=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MMqIQBaVGYZq/Zgi+W2k44+dTA+P/hP3kvxns0OZWkP0YV+fIKtiK7mhBD+pFsUVO RdVHsg5sSIJw9BbQ3tm3Asq0Xi7x+F8Kdgi/B99/KgOluq0WprRlLsDViO4ef0kprp b8B2ACna1Ah2B3e5S+/eRFMADNm6oZyFCbkG1EDM= To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: From: Stephen Farrell Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw== Message-ID: <64642989-216e-f0d9-38e2-fef518651bda@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 20:09:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NtdaPbZTgvuK0XQHLbFey9D9PM6P2Alta" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:18:11 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --NtdaPbZTgvuK0XQHLbFey9D9PM6P2Alta Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="XJsLaOwynnGRLlDE97c5t2gclcYeGqd59"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: <64642989-216e-f0d9-38e2-fef518651bda@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) References: In-Reply-To: --XJsLaOwynnGRLlDE97c5t2gclcYeGqd59 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------AB244E34F5525082CF293EE1" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------AB244E34F5525082CF293EE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, On 02/10/2020 18:13, Eliot Lear wrote: > Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that > he is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel > pointed out that he is less comfortable with that notion and more > comfortable with a managerial function. Please feel free to > discuss. >=20 ISTM neither advisor nor executive manager are right but that we want a bit of both. I do think an RSx ought advise the community and other I* entities, without being able to override their consensus on some issues (e.g. technical content of an RFC), but that an RSx ought be the one to finalise format and style issues wrt the RFC series without always having rough consensus. (The current v3 nits seem like a good example where rough consensus isn't the best tool for finishing, even if it was the right tool at an earlier stage for making some of the decisions needed.) Cheers, S. --------------AB244E34F5525082CF293EE1 Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nem CP5PMvmh5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kT q0IqYzsEv5HI58S+QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtE gvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKrEMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy +pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZUbUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5 iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqOVz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9 to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJgb097ZaNyuY1ETghV B5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k4LyM2lp5 FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9t lyWxn5XiHzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQAB tCFTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgPHN0ZXBoZW5AamVsbC5pZT6JAj0EEwEIACcFAlo9 UYwCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQWrL68XsXK+qG CxAApYHWYgGOIL3G6/OpkejdAkQoCVQAK8LJUSf6vzwost4iVfxIKcKW/3RqKNKk rRl8beJ7j1CWXAz9+VXAOsE9+zNxXIDgGA7HlvJnhffl+qwibVgiHgUcJFhCSbBr sjC+1uULaTU8zYEyET//GOGPLF+X+degkE/sesh4zcEAjF7fGPnlncdCCH3tvPZZ sdTcjwOCRVonKsDgQzBTCMz/RPBfEFX44HZx4g1UQAcCA4xlucY8QkJEyCrSNGpG nvGK8DcGSmnstl1/a9fnlhpdFxieX3oY2phJ1WKkYTn6Advrek3UP71CKxpgtPmk d3iUUz/VZa0Cv6YxQXskspRDVEvdCMYSQBtJPQ4y2+5UxVR9GIQXenwYp9AP2niv Voh+ITsDWWeWnnvYMq07rSDjq0nGdj41MJkNX+Yb2PXVyXItcj5ybE3T2+y3pSBG FEZYJGuaL4NwtBJFMOdOtBmUOPbetS2971EL3Izxb7ibOZWDwexv+8R6SWYfP1wV N3p46RyBQuXqJV8ccE11m6vtZTGSYgnLUUFZMRQYH+0hwuYe0T3AA18xDdSYsa8v ovCCd3l5S4UNzIM2PMChqGrEzKapUpZg7+8ACcxRU3b9Ihd7WYjJ+pQPCoWYKozv tEvenbNpE/govO/ED3B14e+R2yevRPjRrsN7PJzSf15fQLuJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9 UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLrSwf+MIHbFRQ4O5cmLYR5sIByWelN3SuRN/gW8rpKo9Ok Cz6An8uV/iCXy5tNMLzzi0BFl8f22DwBcC5qy9qnlIAdogWam1qWoTAoAD8veEqm uKhYrqJsCcAyNrKYmK0hP3rpHxx1LySDmKYXmw/8qtBXKHTouMm+5tSsznhykRMT AAr2p7PSaHgo+hIVaW/rKSspHjDhhZS+G9mtOZad1IH29M6G1Q1NCO0Ywe8krKLQ IAQlFxtgvOqpPOZNzeKBa/+KbE8TGgMWrkOhC8OeEM5PVzdDhlhD9kPzB/pCKDF5 DofJ/ZRqnDpbKPQ0bsW38AOig3kOc0A27awiBEw3urqR1YkCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4X CgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJbtyScAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSI/oP/0A9J9nrnBMq Zpm857lfYWw+rshLK+tyeP4OQeOqnDFvs9jePpcyJLG3DF2r6VbVKPQq+AE6Uf5h cJBDEN6BjEhRPSbLcqG3A1cz/nNwm8rPmNp+oKhmaBBQGxwciMLmzgynsDydnjPp MyEs04zvsbsl4vrp2095o105l8KcrrxQrioFjbwveGwHQK9bxJKhx9D+gIk+MouB ur45UDKTZkMZrr9FGrtkyXCGAxvKdcNC5Oa8z9sj1rcUJfG/OpVAMWhArdlZbFUQ yoX6pU2Zb1CR2qpWAVerGSfBhmfCyStjARqaKxlftjO+Bj3Jj73Cr5eqej3qB5+V 4BCsPjr4RLvVbYUCPsRdxWc+nBLlfVYkRURu21g1hFm5KFPjgUkyo1s4vjUOY8Dy I+xLGF7f/IhUBG6l+Vswhpwu7ydalZkeFiPx5xna5NfbEYxvsIf71DvipGvIOaHv X4egWoFgm8n/9c3rcMxJtpwHPSsUt5dgLsyu6VE0IbvOAc3dN7CWJ355DVFJq9Zg 2YVf0izSpyyzJeGsgkfjW6xpmdvZxuT2UcN4BTcm6vYqueASGrb3lfhzC5gpeVsc /MoSjTS65vNWbpzONZWMZuLEFraxWJzC0JrDK3NCd0VN3kstqGkVbUIiYOnUm8Vu 4zoVMLlGWzHLIGoPRG2nRezn1YyNfyb5iQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8 pK1gE7QL/ApC5P68W5DrI1787WJVZv1u4t/g39vTr7Xer3UMTVQg10vpa7pmqOGh jIDzDMg3Pe3K3M7fVzfAlUA1qw6ne4RCueVoRKpubeF4AlYbMr0K6hNCPjt5uAxm bBVuejKTc6pru5rv5gKL0nDbr+Snft5xt7juBLSSimw0/41sZnkjCxo9rF/RA/v6 +uWyK171RKmsEYu8fFtw1eqUNt/Xj792TUixE3pxXheNtQtZGk/9P3W83ChhG4Fh 5EQsn0pIh9wZIAbMRLpgRKyW87fWHZC8/YH8h7afarvn9Thl5pFUldCe22mNJj6K LChn2aEHQd+PdY1GBpZEcmNEUPuovwzatM0h64hCzTm41eDqRfihZVBT7TbfXQnv 8rywa42Mk756RGzzEZcQEhwQXZcMQUfxIQQ2VyJo0zG36VdZTQF7TF/4Lz7/3cJ5 6jOIm+dwPXtu+C2wAQuD4USOLt4JWPYpqzDfHYJIND/497P9Z9SuQeahr2ez3DRB g3qsHEjBV7QyU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsICgyMDE3KSA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJyZWxs QGNzLnRjZC5pZT6JAkAEEwEIACoCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwEC HgECF4AFAlo+o3cCGQEACgkQWrL68XsXK+qO0A//ZsfQzyXrZlu/eEV5jU620yeO M3P7SW3C3UQYdCgZ/TlvxGgKow5oDSXgjMiUyq9csGqbPBxlDYSxFZHNeDVKYIuP 2ZK24tw5k6duTh4+sFwUualTMlcp0zBCIzn3hRcsRvuPKHfl5+6oOi0+xqx3jX/s /69L/fvHmdSKet5LIUAxoYaZkTCruFrPWb01tgAl5JExWkhmCY98iD+EeiIMAWBj Mw1xV+p0uCwNbN6XDzcToK7wsm+tAIiWUy3DpP60a6WbVwdV0HNt2WZq5U5Jdh2k 4S+sN2CnYk4tTW7jHjsWarV3FLISCOObADZuB7ljU4kYfdwZ+WzenXY4LGlxGQSl AblGjwZe4EIkCXAJUtzJhoFUuGaF/PlWjxqV3UFRcgTERZTijguVyREre8GNERNg vDxZvuXssEjvz9X5JfcIZDIJpdzhLiEIj9noUbfx1SzB5KDPQj0O7elMHa1671/r wWcpGr/MfVPTOik4H7F8rcVJelceZTzC4tvya7M+jM4fyFWWt8Y4atTixUiP7U9o 4uBZCQ0GzvsmFA4XLqn2pA5rVizMXnGbGOjufAP/efEJ4ul3qvjYe8ye8DXEDjKA xo/tuHYtk19XCi83QzFhWls5TT+XQeVTMEvVqo9Wek8yoxo67qvLKKqIcG9givQd 8MxYNAbNYgSPtkbhZ8SJARwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLzHAgAlWT6 NXEGtw/r1miKNGcopzvzILQ9oB8rKI9U9EL6tOf/y2V5oYee/GyQDb3ZdoPxxYYc Jf+RyiH1nMoqUIZiZJaf3bJXinDZ5+AdfE++UR2NBvqaNyC6u3r24jo1B/sagKbY tWgsYtRqHLD4IWi37MZrVyjBuF7u14Q07+uhjq6mX2O/tHpCYw/Q82tbeTRPyUf1 WQOAfD1kfBpW9PvAva5Iw9FWeXpCXRzwxnCZhYfGfqtuSw6CPBYLdbikqML6FZ7E DuTBb/8um1wK7Y9bgeIQC+CYjhYB5RXa1tDJRab2Js4luCvSR0w/CgHw26293tlv e2Q6UTrmHxP5U22DlokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1QMgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkK CwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6tJpD/4rrILH+meP07vrx8wW5eYuqCiP GYnh/CXxIF8eLrfbe5d4QRgtq+w6UeQPMyzKRIRiCoBXB2oJLBZHyxBPxZlg33dT MrEGn8QWKx2iNuz9rZMXyOSWFetuO01d/aUPd5BnbLbIyK5of8xCQlXM6KH8bc+9 gQ7edR9mfLTdvBf2FR522hg8BRBM1imKc3vO8v39+qIHHRjuiwxBBCAOhHtHRsZX ripS0uFA07dM46Oi/E8osjx6fQt/lH5z/PN+2adxYSrLSAXfr1oD3RxYNhuWgyGF L64/VCQb1YGjf0Z5MBPnWm9jgUoOY5K9eNSS0L83WeJjlF5+Q/WOgB+rb49Prm2D Feo9+S9f2V53Llz1WIspXJg6f+n9lmHE94MfQj1GAHCzI0FeL19lvM+LhD8jJSCb hrC3+yobyy/AUOs5Z3E+njjX1FF/VCVAs6iOa6i+XG+Y1hh3ir2y1kckJ5auT10M SU8GEZu9ayU4M3o3N9yxOjaoP0NuQ4MMLL/n/u4u94AeZaHPNBXn/hVfVRRmpRXt GKvJtFAEppGEYezB+bLKIm6XlpPkhnwYzleLZ7AMEco2C6QM8QPB3g3JpS3sqRhA 5rEP4lL16BmijmF+CHoPE/zwgKZbKpyVDqvIW5IDgvfIC2X4pbZDRvGIUKaGSB4+ ksZgUUnNyvfQr2p7jokCMwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJb tySbAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSeKkQAJm44jt1kwHgQgeDBKdjdvl0AjE0xVEQxriZ6lP/ l//34YT0auFfzsYIrChSpQXAEtobBAr4Ohw1Us+BZe+H5P8vm6LRuPwozC3SjwfX 4Iec8+9ot6tIVg4sbedDSgb/CCFVjsmIGcQ1P73JLJTBJ6mxYCV/gn3QC6bwDOFo 7kD9FDHCjRN8XfhHQ4Q9cYyt06uF31qG/aumgWYC9geCGgAwiHgwxNYb9GoJ0iZj CROwbYvLTcQgsVUW2bTmsVR13UVKDsdl02sRV7qcVYW6R0a3Ra8KudX+nt25H5DR Gd382KZ5W8pydsy/viTvD9z6v0ulChBYxAedIvGIClrhbxlLEPmIg4ImVOLGqsUg Vm32J95WOjEkk4PEZ12xSDBtwhSJqmJNboWlfmw43KdIbY8zNhffIO3N6O7FsdGx mqyHeLoTpqY+ySVUPpbuyW8ujnI/J//+6hdTZ9dQsEJQlWngKuWOQ5ma58MPSN88 zllsqhZAFQjNxqnkSzL6ZQ+v/jvuRRe16B80AeO55DsmbWsMv/YLLD1mSi7+Khy2 EtMBhgojWwrGMvdLN6X3mnzNJEscYyLxM9tSk+iySP2sLthK0BVgpAzBSdaf/ezI z60P+neHDzteNFf8Mn7lmgYk1amvZoJ29s5+n2HwxyRL5dVMyMdyQmntubbctfqr Z0tIiQGcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gnCYMAJY4FeIYjlIXGghFWzsB 4fYwK1+iaFpU3fSto5qcrqVtVPjXpwqczqBWeXGyQxiB0kan4OVAXydIeaP8EAuF CA7paP3s9STLJBO3KurkwyRkPW5zo0X7xVqaVToRsX2Ul98KVJoHYQD1KdezEtwl vpNwiiBr42AYR751Vm6JBVAbQXuFpB3c8bUV0OkkRxNFtL8/2PieHar58n5dntGk bPlPkztahsFqktgacIgXHX5vaT+7YeeZ1DWLOYjGO0wNhkOSeroCmxwJUikU7joB p823L7r5KfpqWTPpSCzVstQKZUGmmoE1qCswY/Ud5wvp9SccpIILkRXj0rZRtfnE 5MpL3hjmtNzfDd9qIsJtBJlSB2hZwAsVm1l+EWN9hG3tqyA43niUMy2n6q690of3 berSiQ+kvY/aC9Hx8I+bKzOV9/J2VUTqfaPZa4Uy2rVX5Q2p69n/PMj7mEer0rCL 3j9V16J9c+s0BSkXoKdtYdB0TWVhBgUybd9qtYcwHWvhP7QuU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJy ZWxsIDxzdGVwaGVuQHRvbGVyYW50bmV0d29ya3MuY29tPokCPQQTAQgAJwUCWj1R WgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6jsc EADEcB0WQEZn2AkrzDs1RhL0Lp6cZi0BigofkbcGfdhJyMSs19C0dhvncrAFClVI 6/Udw3yFtDyYtOCf2W3M3A1K6/RfEizCLzTsdFIhni9gOJLlUpXViQtgrlstjk7h qVV3Ooz4BlCqS4cG7rfqf4LQQPpTAuFUEV9I28FBUB2irqC+v4gTysIgpMw0bA1y BU9sX5jE/tRkzqnuzZrkwiobDtRFJ9qp+7O2JtcY4EsVtLAsaodJKc5cF8R4OvB1 n66vxxcgg9Eh4JNWZ47xsaCmAGo1Bcb2jIY35OtgAL7gCGLRSMKTtAaPy1/fEgIq hCljJ9x40Fkn/3r2BX21WC9HFSPFTBz2RluLRzxdgxOrkYK8EiHUPoE5b1AEzZKw 2AbeXfr57f5zYsN3IqfbQLUjMYtUN1wK3Pjb+idD972wyXMWt8uOzlI7b9Ocu+nY m2whBfJv9Pmp3QYTmPz+LB9lH65VNVUSxSXVr5iWXO3qx1HtEiGEqkporMQCTh3T 5Ud3PvMSRBFFKNs9WhJ/Lxz+SV30WLwG6dr5mQqlzAhb4Phc/zekZyXRdS/oDKrB LUucS36O//49JeyRi1QvOfxnfmIqRIAf/k3PoYJmTo5E82//r5Qj3YGlRu78ba0H Arxs+ACD6AnEHHcbswpbtVEKYzlSu0Ar0Dc7vRWM/IyQdIkBHAQQAQgABgUCWj1S oAAKCRAvPIc2gF+NosIsB/9f/29FNla3BJfGIEIDnhrqGD0i9bSa89SqBd++uG06 TQgW5wsqtNcrwn81yZTq6XE6i9VtD4GKfqC0d4KZJr9bnbeD81cI64VOdL8zJWJs 0vj5EIXCobKyX74Kb4uePUyZqwT2Q74I116u/HwA9/FXsPo5isbh4ZqD4t0VHpWk mfq1FPT9a/JPyX46qKqB2Fce/7Qy+SQP1NfkuUlbhUH/JG9aSSYvk3lznNiH41x9 M+FDlL106itXOubrl3oi2fT3fsSedq7uzt+IV0DQEeNaoQAUuwEhdB8IWOMqN2wo DjGVKJftfsSWY9ilZrnDBNDrp0vRqcx33LUMkIw4d7iBiQIzBBABCAAdFiEEfhcK BFyEz0YOK3mgEO952f2DUxIFAlu3JJwACgkQEO952f2DUxJjuw/6ApHSsVTWD4a0 H6FJ23A9Ftpy+aXZ4vYlzkSrfsn2ECrEfK3lXQh/uzwjJUDYZeB1/BQsFZtcYNQO JSSHbQ49BFRLwb1J/wBZG4bbmrkLxnNbKDKQvzxEpclkMW0Dj0J6o7kGrmzIGGrh B+JJN99AcineHRug8ZSFIERRCmigxdhAKU0BFD7P+5HNHltSL3DF1c2fFOf2JrgB KVoE+9RhMZjWNbYetFFLCkjXb5Rpay9zeMm1DxfSTGAnuOwUXW6qq4hnl5+VC/48 ceDZElLLfu7RQUZv44pkSTOWZs+iQoJiHMFHk9wPqyB2Vok1yJ2a2j27WhXrJlPw nZbgJO5RyWDG3p/eVmpl5Uuc2dsfIpR17KnAuWpghK6V+cyFncDoGCl/YG2Mvool sW08FiZh3Ej4dnJjj25TZkeFG74JJDXLvMYpJfSBGnmETv4Dhcm2xPqVMuFuL1qJ lMbVLrMo2GXeo03OzNyvbs+u8WLIaGm5hC7N1CXY8wZs4jo6OJ/expvnc07dEuws 4zT3AiWv3nIouWReRStZy9QkavDocqbyPmilcdPCYk4BsOlzpwwO74hNG7iyl0Kd AlwTxGQ7y0rJou6HYa1TmRhIEr3vKvlW+JfUUrqtjXgsuacTXo4+Ira2JUErL2cY zQMq1j4r1ZyhFnuz93s7Rsx/Nw0+0YuJAZwEEAEKAAYFAlvFx+UACgkQajsROTyk rWCJqwv+NLVPE4sD4sDA2/6Ek7UsRIUkg+S39fhqWsLc4rtw/mDunv8Un61I3K04 fZ2Ry4nF9hZM0a710UvXFbStvrzRJO3EAAcdJR9LTCd19e8UeruQbIee3YT91U4N kC9JMpecfq62/teOAU2e5P3fWYaLs5ZX7zCLwWuBcW2l3SyoljQczM85HhJ3XHm+ FnwQ6D9xRle+lvWTcuC9d1yAyUb8IOospcL2lJTmy8e3r79R24hPlSB4LDe0wEN8 AXbagrcAQZjwyaHyWxjJbTwZ0b43WGdfIqZ1ElOeoffbketPGRmWvx5xUvb2ALFB BdETzV270gs5XDJgJ1SIIKOyDADxwvroTe2jD8C/841eEql5QSow3s/U3zRqk3mt tto8Qw/DN71aeh6dmYSsvd2UjsHw/vofOPRBGxZLEkKTEvMnhmMW9hiKPkPia+Qg evYE020qpKSxLEdWA8nprHwxmGiDNesCfXSC6vm1qfyj5g8HzxSckq9ZaMhKMCo7 vxflUEDuuQINBFo9UDIBEAD6DdHQfMav8OXfhjTteoarOrlJTSdci727xiezGPuB HmpvceBRZgRasdbaMc4HJee+R9+5x/nLPCuy/DxDyIjwIUeJNgc+l7LjI9WfpHTD 8U4xxjvR5Mi7+ToQQUOUNuzT0O0pyuxP1uY3RehHEhOVfBZO59ipSeZL5iQC6T5M sK1SKfs51pLa5ToC1rc8tBJ4zZmxRAyZiYc/AH2uZ/6rYjTTkAn1DVI9DYo2D/zE 4bGjXdJW5pKphFB2lX3dG4I7ODi+5e1H6A/QpCu6z8/ZkIQ+9T1xcX/YwiFeA7Pb TuW/eITbMbI1eV3+fyym9aT7Rsflmp31Zxtr+sZwGGZf00ooMBFmqOS//NUQ/Vf3 vDUew1h5QU1yDaWT3NApvi+XWPH9TPy6TMfZA2FThHf11sX/gDBa5JWQZbptPEcm oazpiKZt91CrFPOaoXDPck/Q61dfmr/oPikfByYnASIM3OwEuXqyQ9JDRfKrem5r +oA/wxWb5jELElAhOpnyqMMvOh7uz1foUssL8MAv2TGXmxpVJ8Nu4je6wf96Z22f Q0D38zud+CKH3bMP3ayXXJBcdPoENrzFbWP5FTg/4TTDJ3vOAHZR5iCunYghx8b7 Ffa4UbkwlD+dh8GiIAtvT51Ac0cO0Wc0Zjc57zPUz1zloMbf+zb1Bsn7DuEQoqj1 gwARAQABiQIlBBgBCAAPBQJaPVAyAhsMBQkJlCYAAAoJEFqy+vF7FyvqrC8P/1tF 6TeR83xD6MasqXyrBjwcLmziaF0Mlkj8k/YUiZ/knb53n97xQnh9yxPv0TT8Wpfd n3BmvqGyh8+ouHX9jMOxiRkMdNhIauVYY/8jmRfBSYWcFkfMzdYasvdLtmYJgx25 2HKTFdeOrszoOjWjEzwmh+tca3AFMu/nB++/KAmi5UJV7zsZ7uYJ5jm97LV5SLjN JIXXM+lHqCDrjDaDhNczmq1LCRlU6/WDjvkuwaVhZG4lXxMDrvKnXMkjseQ2oKjw rIdfQM86H1z5J31lfhqop+of0cimcIsBgSCPu+h96LHuAzeRBCbDKeqrfZtAZAGs okRina9947fRWxXHh3O66ILmXKNRxxWbDkPvYnQWUat8SbSTDoPWrDIGDRIAypqY o3pcN2OE0C1chqgDZQxkr+9kYZQpupOAN2TR+fM7JvbO9coKI8Uqog8CopoMeDQk d0YjcqlB1E0svODHTzcSoRzogDBYDqNLP7qVkNXpcOAXSVioBgiSDf7o5RdS/qmU yXBIeq6I5z8xBcd+BQ/n/9Frkm6K7IKP3ngUP4wEoiPx5ZE5+fPIScGmVUcZIMhk vMvem9XXh1yyhqN14gfjmLwPGdWbrgG8QUe0s2WeWIyss6uTiyF+ZbJSo2XOKVc3 YFMVUUfgyudqAV1wWdZinUk+H3pkqOKoHAy/8fST =3DYzQY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------AB244E34F5525082CF293EE1-- --XJsLaOwynnGRLlDE97c5t2gclcYeGqd59-- --NtdaPbZTgvuK0XQHLbFey9D9PM6P2Alta Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEW7Wm6ldl0sWGPK4nWrL68XsXK+oFAl94zFgACgkQWrL68XsX K+pY6Q/+ONDE7uJ2ch1qLv7qO0/AYuVRGS3efsKqhFTALfX7TpYUfCUnEVr5NEyQ 7EguIK+Tgs4Mr/tK1u2A6zWN1g8b1wmbsXaQLVhdIKOivj4MrrpLzEJXGSKvoJWt WqwdEu3JcxLC9oUyKKxHkIWgNry4+XgdGGjLc4xLLN69Wc5GXwam2HhCNx0yFFaO zxPkd7K0E2fcWIgDXxSY2o42XkjXRTGojskDfou+AtwYGKL5C0XoS8sCNDEvxDcU 7p9kVBwth0R0hwADFmdLQ3MbDFUOuZONxj6sQSGMmxnMM6aOMunOkOzb4NSf8ye0 /SsS8f1LJ0RJfZ0UClXv3BSA0LmFJFoROptSpYccEmyf3qD5b7aaaplSBgOFKTO4 Hq+CW/StsrQWJLA52qpUH+amfilQ5HvGhPB+38qvKQeN5XEuY8sUplCUBhYfR/cP dycENqJ3zr3o6AEXjCx2zQN55zJB2OaiU7xjWG3bCc7q2xweruMQU/gMfLZjgKzI 7Yo2RHFfm7bGjuL2FAviFR+DHm7sopB9IJ8QbbcLwIO2XPR/O+78Yc1U11Ff/gyt wtOY55TPT7nwARRwn8Q6z9jbON4TRwb9b21kMKyx8uwAYRIIQUcEXQwTWZK2N2hU w+WarEsy11+gNRSLP8wRA0CMsEQQQooMMkoFgutjV1i4QU8X0Is= =V314 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NtdaPbZTgvuK0XQHLbFey9D9PM6P2Alta-- From nobody Sat Oct 3 12:34:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E783A0115 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:34:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rhNcpIq9Tua7 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985F63A0112 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3cWc24Xnz1ntHw; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601753692; bh=yCLQgYFd0hZ0pA6Ef0GHZKwEZE3toVCst2yjPZVGFM0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=U1+n/dgn6P39nrHOS9L0ZeNH016m4UlYhxMzu/DQdbE2MSQNSFhrtLmfFQ6zR0omb 2hrpHuaelpl1Kr3EEZynvfiQrnk6vxYGjmNn0QPgCdAgjdXuVs5Zkc2k02FOZsqoFR UaDmlMh/8b2+pJ8P6p7WNOVhJAUfq6DRuFDU/RyM= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C3cWb1JNFz1nt2h; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 12:34:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Stephen Farrell , Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <64642989-216e-f0d9-38e2-fef518651bda@cs.tcd.ie> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <7820759f-3a41-73a4-cd13-0b24a88ad200@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:34:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <64642989-216e-f0d9-38e2-fef518651bda@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE) X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:34:54 -0000 Stephen, I think we mostly agree. I was specific that I did not think this expert should be doing line management. (Note that as far as I know, the RSE has never had that responsibility.) I do think they for the role to be effective, and to address our community needs, we need something more than an advisor. That is why I used the term leadership in my response to this question. Yours, Joel On 10/3/2020 3:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 02/10/2020 18:13, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Here we have already had some discussion. Adam just pointed out that >> he is very comfortable with the RSA aspect, whereas I think Joel >> pointed out that he is less comfortable with that notion and more >> comfortable with a managerial function. Please feel free to >> discuss. >> > > ISTM neither advisor nor executive manager are right but > that we want a bit of both. I do think an RSx ought advise > the community and other I* entities, without being able > to override their consensus on some issues (e.g. technical > content of an RFC), but that an RSx ought be the one to > finalise format and style issues wrt the RFC series without > always having rough consensus. (The current v3 nits seem > like a good example where rough consensus isn't the best > tool for finishing, even if it was the right tool at an > earlier stage for making some of the decisions needed.) > > Cheers, > S. > > From nobody Sun Oct 4 06:09:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E5B3A0853 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 06:09:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXGLkjy2pwLy for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 06:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCC73A0855 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 06:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C43wS57DSzyXN; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 15:09:28 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <10fc8774-564f-88a1-3cd7-b27c2966a451@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 15:09:28 +0200 Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 623509768.071841-bae40d27f93514399f00870bdcb35d0a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <19FFEF63-4E27-4514-BD2D-5BF13580AF75@tzi.org> References: <10fc8774-564f-88a1-3cd7-b27c2966a451@it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Moving on from Issue 10 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:09:35 -0000 On 2020-10-03, at 03:45, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst = wrote: >=20 > Just a little request: If at all possible, could you please avoid = subjects with only numbered issues? I know some people in our community = have no problem remembering dozens or hundreds of RFC numbers, but that = might not apply to everybody. +1. I=E2=80=99ve lost track of the discussion in this list. Fortunately, only nuances separate my opinions from those of Mike = StJohns, so I=E2=80=99ll speak up only when I see him post and think one = of these nuances is worth mentioning. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Mon Oct 5 21:24:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37273A1099 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=FZ4vhcfH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nRT7eDdA Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lBS2-WtvynUm for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7834C3A1095 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FF1B5F for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 00:24:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:24:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=RCPit xBNodStcqpAZgDW7qhIwB2tXOOT7kmdIPBTCgw=; b=FZ4vhcfHCCZGGlVx+gdL9 0XBFE0adUGJt3NVCH+UougHQcGmpCKoZih0y5u2kDM4Cqgq4SlrxKEuXoIjAozTm Qnc6g7ypP3eirZ3oD9aU3KUqq1JgGbwcAycXLlS1tuTqK07r8bc4Rbpj/NVrILyH DTHm0aK30pXrWib7MVcMDV4wLbBmHSNCSWmteQl8+lAR6aApUq7jAghgb4nACZRo sjIJg0lglQkHUu7c84NUDYvTwo+QWl4zx5T0Lqow/UG5R/+1xXS87Z3tkiDEiZVO SlDNxa2BOHoBHQT8rwJxGFn39lncLdza8MNx70qyGJvq9BFkXhGUGAKUMFTQSEt7 Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=RCPitxBNodStcqpAZgDW7qhIwB2tXOOT7kmdIPBTC gw=; b=nRT7eDdAp4/h6rV1h8MrUD2r7F6uEw6IZQmzRr53c0xV2AVslpJ8rkBev OV0OZNYEiQUi7ZAkNdHtqridBTceSgTYiAqHzYT+EM3R50PK6DuQcRhsPJ/JjBBv hM+Xx97RV7JcaQBHcOqxs2CYDWSf3VER5VZx8OAeNldQT+6M+7vYQf02aCP3EC1s ikcfCS17ts6bOwvIupCjuQikoxmwdn47PJV9I3r9GqoLptJbm91/G7g2/lOGGK37 AUvRGd3wrtXr0imIuYB+GJwMsCU8bWP+kBSxh67PwU3F+Gp9/QRC4Gv/xA1h5ADa 416yxqqmxygMOY1qPsYXL0+g38RYg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeefgdekfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgsehtqh ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefgeetfeekgedvvdefud efvdejhfevieffgefgvdejkeeujeektedttdehffeiteenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhh uhgsrdgtohhmpdhirggsrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE42B2006D; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 00:24:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:24:08 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 04:24:51 -0000 So I haven't had time to think about this issue, but it seems like our c= hairs are forging ahead. With only 2 days of feedback gathered. I've b= een otherwise occupied and will remain so for a little while yet. Is the fantastical thing being constructed by this process supposed to p= ass for consensus? On Thu, Oct 1, 2020, at 03:40, Brian Rosen wrote: > So, we think we have created the issues list, and we would like to=20 > start on one of the key questions that we believe doesn=E2=80=99t depe= nd on=20 > other decisions. >=20 > Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position=20= > is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties=20= > they have? =20 > This is: https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues/10 >=20 > Please send your thoughts on this subject. We would actually=20 > appreciate +1s as we go through this process so we can try to gauge if= =20 > we have any form of consensus. >=20 > We are basically looking for a yes/no. Your opinions on secondary=20 > issues if you think there is such a position are, as always, welcome,=20= > but we are really trying at this point to see if we have consensus one= =20 > way or another on if there is such a role. This is an opportunity for= =20 > those who haven=E2=80=99t spoken up yet to weigh in. >=20 > Brian >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > From nobody Tue Oct 6 04:20:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0064F3A1412 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13aRfWGFrk11 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D073A140F for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:20:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=508; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601983248; x=1603192848; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=S1gHoVGQ7ghVcFrdwwJswL6rEri5c5EhuyKZHEk7KWk=; b=MJF5Q6ejQoJZGI8Fe69Lw61LreVZvmD4EDNr2tUDDgNf9oJbvclX6v+w kzFxANm4XqJ+DnAw0ll46Rw/yBW0zoZYrOFdenBMUk41Rl8Y49gpzXfdP 9JrwUjglIAo2u1w7KmSVadf7jTg9QV1VzUGXgO/eIk0AD6GcomQ5Z3+cV c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DaAgCDUnxf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+DbwEgEiyEPYkCiDicJgsBAQENAQEvBAEBhEoCggkmOBM?= =?us-ascii?q?CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthWiFcgEBAQECASNWBQsLDgoCAiYCAlcGE2aCQIJ?= =?us-ascii?q?dIKc1doEyhVSFAYEOKo1MggCBOByCTT6EPYMXM4ItBLdPgnGDFJdQAx+CfJ4?= =?us-ascii?q?lr02DXwIEBgUCFYFrI4FXMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDZxoPwMwNwIGAQkBAQMJjkg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,343,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30143045" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Oct 2020 11:20:43 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com [10.61.91.42]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 096BKgXs011645 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:20:43 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:20:41 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1C28877A-C996-43F2-9EA0-FA6BE315F5F0@cisco.com> References: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.91.42, ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:20:50 -0000 > On 6 Oct 2020, at 06:24, Martin Thomson wrote: >=20 > So I haven't had time to think about this issue, but it seems like our = chairs are forging ahead. With only 2 days of feedback gathered. I've = been otherwise occupied and will remain so for a little while yet. And just how long would you like the group to wait? >=20 > Is the fantastical thing being constructed by this process supposed to = pass for consensus? It will if you don=E2=80=99t engage. Eliot From nobody Tue Oct 6 04:45:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F7F3A1418 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:45:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H37QMkPvgjpT for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5413A1416 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 04:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee74f05006c4774dbac65c703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e74f:500:6c47:74db:ac65:c703]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kPlPg-00012E-Pl; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:45:48 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:45:48 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> References: To: Eric Rescorla X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1601984753;fdc999c4; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kPlPg-00012E-Pl Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:45:55 -0000 > On 1. Oct 2020, at 16:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: [snip] >=20 > I am finding it hard to answer this question in the abstract, because = the question of what job we want done (i.e., what duties they will have) = is prior to whether we need the position. >=20 > With that said, I do not think we need what I would characterize as a = "thought leader" in the sense that it is their job to drive the = discussion. I think it is reasonably likely that we need to engage = someone to provide specialized expertise in much the same way as we = engage a lawyer to provide specialized expertise, but I do not believe = they should be acting in a "thought leader" position as I understand it. I=E2=80=99m actually a +1 here. I don=E2=80=99t really know what a = though leader is supposed to do and I strongly believe we don=E2=80=99t = have a common understanding of that.=20 Brian proposed two subquestions in a follow-up email (do we need a = person with specialized expertise? does that person act as a thought = leader?). I think I agree that we need a "specialized expertise=E2=80=9D = in some role but again I still don=E2=80=99t know what it would mean for = that person to act as a though leader.=20 I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives = problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions = should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d be = worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open wg = is committed to actually work on problems; and I don't think the chairs = would or should be taking this role. While this might be some kind of = leadership position, I don=E2=80=99t think this position must be help by = the same person that brings in the specialized expertise, nor it would = necessarily call this a thought leader. Mirja =20 >=20 > -Ekr >=20 > -- Christian Huitema >=20 >=20 > I >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Oct 6 05:03:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792083A13FB for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rwMGvH5r6lBv for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6E4B3A0822 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1490; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1601985802; x=1603195402; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=plo+/rV9RUzs+ftJy2QG30gs3dfPgOcIc7wY/Sz85WA=; b=Q2dNtb6qaEIqhqnd6vrkgV+wKykwahrDDQxvPcmCKrM8paSmsZ2aZxD0 aHtTQcyrhUCScX0KlcEg/uskrdlHfA+8C3o+evjOKA81LBaTAdHM6EYUl +C2IVzxtDjOBgHqqyvbyqnhdpqM6dJCr9DVxu+puvMEUl4rMKdA54DavP k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AaAQCSXHxf/xbLJq1gHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBQIE+BQELAYNuASAShGmJAogRJpo9gWkLAQEBDQEBLwQBAYRKAoIJJjc?= =?us-ascii?q?GDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVzAQQBI0gHBwULCw4MAiYCAlcGJweDC4J?= =?us-ascii?q?dIKc2doEyhVSEe4EOKgGNS4IAgTgMEIJNPoQIARIBIYMXM4ItBJpjnGyCcYM?= =?us-ascii?q?UjESLDAMfoSGvTYNfAgQGBQIVgWokZ3AzGggbFWUBgj89EhkNi0aRIj8DZwI?= =?us-ascii?q?GAQkBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,343,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30084774" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Oct 2020 12:03:18 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com [10.61.91.42]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 096C3HE2028256 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:03:18 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:03:16 +0200 Cc: Eric Rescorla , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91C4C79B-9024-4293-9FF5-9402C3D8837B@cisco.com> References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> To: Mirja Kuehlewind X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.91.42, ams3-vpn-dhcp6955.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:03:24 -0000 Hi Mirja, >=20 > Brian proposed two subquestions in a follow-up email (do we need a = person with specialized expertise? does that person act as a thought = leader?). I think I agree that we need a "specialized expertise=E2=80=9D = in some role but again I still don=E2=80=99t know what it would mean for = that person to act as a though leader.=20 >=20 A little further down in the discussion the point is made that we really = have to figure out what this person does, and then we can figure out how = to name the role. That seems to me the right order. To that end... > I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives = problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions = should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d be = worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open wg = is committed to actually work on problems; and I don't think the chairs = would or should be taking this role. While this might be some kind of = leadership position, I don=E2=80=99t think this position must be help by = the same person that brings in the specialized expertise, nor it would = necessarily call this a thought leader. That seems like great input for characterizing the relationship between = the person and the group and, perhaps even the RPC. But what does this = mean in terms of expertise or responsibilities? This question is not = just for you=E2=80=A6 Eliot From nobody Tue Oct 6 05:09:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35023A141B for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:09:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WnSmsaAzfdk2 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD573A07A0 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 096C9b7K030837; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:09:37 +0100 Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18272203A; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:09:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC39122040; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:09:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 096C9Zqn024372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:09:36 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Mirja Kuehlewind'" , "'Eric Rescorla'" Cc: References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> In-Reply-To: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:09:35 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <033c01d69bd9$8f205e40$ad611ac0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AQLK7I1Ov9H+78aSe8jtI3v+4KPWkAGasMh+Adtd88ECbO4nf6dyvcRg X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.5 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25708.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.624-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--16.624-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25708.006 X-TMASE-Result: 10--16.623600-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Kx0w2sAofbvxIbpQ8BhdbPVY7U3NX8JgL5yduZDCCtvkMnUVL5d0E5Yh Qe3AVJWNx54Vdao8NotmN982Esfi6R6+395u0O4NThh/2J+QysUX2zxRNhh61dj+53f0B+EY1lr CPbzbE0qKyb0bKCm6sS5DgotrVqXOHEsuFokV5zcT0vQc28rNURmyTBaqiJvcMLzla/oP+1wEPZ /FNtxg3zlot5S5x5WlNHokOpxD//ZuNo/7cMPxaPRR4zaLaXcQQ5p+5M7krilKDy5+nmfdPv/vR wcN6CxcUDYJowyDuo5MVIC8olZOn3Be8qvb907dHcQQBuf4ZFv1/v/qyECZIivFSzw3D/Z+Mcon SX+sH6GUWyEKsncAiwAQVXyBWecEw3inhDZkPRkIs18ZTh19+Fg3VqSTJ7Soy5JfHvVu9Iujhu0 ln/nI0/QChFXwLJH372uJ/BtEcKi/GznZi6b/mhwu4QM/6CpyPtsIeUiizU4Yrb/sg6KSuWFZVZ XguSLe/HLSIXZGjwFuQmRJ7OAY8AOsjLqzRDBznVTWWiNp+v8FcnqPYTPUh0Ou4hfZe6rEM7nDU IL90GvnzlXMYw4XMAGLeSok4rrZU6baA36eiazEQdG7H66TyKsQd9qPXhnJfNaOiyZMjW4iU63R g/C6ll4SX8z0h2TZmy2xqf3aYKi3BHsTqrY7Cw== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:09:42 -0000 Thanks Mirja, You uncover a good point that we should generalise. I am sure we don't have a common understanding of "Thought Leader". My conclusion is that we must stop using shorthand in this discussion. = If we want to properly reach consensus on what job we want done for us, = we need to be very precise and careful in how we describe the work and = the role. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Mirja = Kuehlewind Sent: 06 October 2020 12:46 To: Eric Rescorla Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader > On 1. Oct 2020, at 16:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: [snip] >=20 > I am finding it hard to answer this question in the abstract, because = the question of what job we want done (i.e., what duties they will have) = is prior to whether we need the position. >=20 > With that said, I do not think we need what I would characterize as a = "thought leader" in the sense that it is their job to drive the = discussion. I think it is reasonably likely that we need to engage = someone to provide specialized expertise in much the same way as we = engage a lawyer to provide specialized expertise, but I do not believe = they should be acting in a "thought leader" position as I understand it. I=E2=80=99m actually a +1 here. I don=E2=80=99t really know what a = though leader is supposed to do and I strongly believe we don=E2=80=99t = have a common understanding of that.=20 Brian proposed two subquestions in a follow-up email (do we need a = person with specialized expertise? does that person act as a thought = leader?). I think I agree that we need a "specialized expertise=E2=80=9D = in some role but again I still don=E2=80=99t know what it would mean for = that person to act as a though leader.=20 I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives = problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions = should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d be = worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open wg = is committed to actually work on problems; and I don't think the chairs = would or should be taking this role. While this might be some kind of = leadership position, I don=E2=80=99t think this position must be help by = the same person that brings in the specialized expertise, nor it would = necessarily call this a thought leader. Mirja =20 >=20 > -Ekr >=20 > -- Christian Huitema >=20 >=20 > I >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --=20 Rfced-future mailing list Rfced-future@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Oct 6 05:39:12 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AB93A09E0 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vB5OqFGSrwF for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F25DB3A09A4 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C5H8S6DVFz101L; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <033c01d69bd9$8f205e40$ad611ac0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:39:04 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 623680744.413414-4daea3c2b8451d7421ca164c7ff90018 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9A05CE9D-DDD9-4696-9144-08E78AFCB8B8@tzi.org> References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <033c01d69bd9$8f205e40$ad611ac0$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:39:11 -0000 On 2020-10-06, at 14:09, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > I am sure we don't have a common understanding of "Thought Leader=E2=80=9D= . Right. I=E2=80=99d more comfortable with first identifying that person as a = =E2=80=9Cprofessional=E2=80=9D. The next question is how much that professional can do on their own vs. = requiring consultation vs. requiring consensus processes, and what level = of initiative we expect from that position. (This is a question we tend to run into a lot at universities; the = keyword is =E2=80=9Cprofessionalization=E2=80=9D. And I can tell you we = are well aware of both the upsides and the downsides=E2=80=A6) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Tue Oct 6 05:54:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E903A08AA for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:54:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Azt4rtpu4V2N for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5266E3A08A6 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee74f05006c4774dbac65c703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e74f:500:6c47:74db:ac65:c703]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kPmUO-0003eP-1o; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:54:44 +0200 From: Mirja Kuehlewind Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:54:40 +0200 References: <5133f0ac-9d26-5f34-3550-e0dc7b2049ef@nthpermutation.com> <431C046D76BEA50F4FB7C8E7@JcK-HP5> <4d7e4ae8-bef4-70db-522c-7ebc96d34cee@nthpermutation.com> <5e005700-9c35-e3cd-7500-8dda49a8d0b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <74f1f6f6-7613-e7df-5bfa-15703b4b795b@gmail.com> To: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <8F913D4F-6FFC-417D-BA5E-83468BE3DA45@kuehlewind.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1601988887;9f33eb92; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kPmUO-0003eP-1o Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Questions and closed groups X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:54:50 -0000 Hi Mike, hi all, Sorry for top-posting but I would quickly like to comment on two point = you've made (and all catching up after holidays=E2=80=A6). First, just because we have some closed groups in the IETF, I don=E2=80=99= t think that is necessarily an argument that this is the right approach = for the RFC series. However, I also really don=E2=80=99t like the term = =E2=80=9Cclosed=E2=80=9D here because the purpose of those groups is not = to decide things in secret but rather to have a dedicated group of = people that have made a commitment to do work and spend time on certain = topics. In both, the IESG and IAB, we have been and are implementing new = measures to increase transparency and also make sure we have good ways = to collect feedback from the community where needed. (The ISE is = different but very much on purpose in order to actually be independent). = There might be a need for a person or group that dictates work and time = for the RFC series as well, however, I=E2=80=99m still trying to = understand how much work force is needed if we separate out the daily = business (which I think is the most important step we should take here). = Such a person or group might be a leadership position, however, if that = is the case I would feel more comfortable if that would be run on a = voluntarily based instead by a paid contractor as we also do for other = leadership positions. Second, the streams we have are all very different and as such have very = different procedures. That=E2=80=99s exactly the reason that we have = different streams. The most noticeable different between the IETF = streams and others is that only the IETF can publish PSs and BCPs. The = other streams can only only publish INF or EXP and explicitly as such = are not required to establish any kind of consensus. For the IAB = particularly, we now announce adoption of drafts and have a request for = community feedback before publication, however, when an IAB document = (I'm talking about recommendation or guidance documents, not process = related docs) is published all IAB members who where on the IAB at that = time are listed and it=E2=80=99s clearly indicated that it is the = opinion of that group. For IETF stream document, a single AD can block a = document (at least temporally), however, there is no way to unilaterally = decide for publication, not even by the IESG, as an IETF last call is = always required. In case of the RFC series, I think we really want = community based decisions as well where those people, who write and read = RFC as their daily business, have a say or at least some kind of veto = like the IETF last call. Mirja > On 28. Sep 2020, at 18:25, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian -=20 >=20 > Inline. >=20 > On 9/27/2020 3:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 27-Sep-20 20:40, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello everybody, >>>=20 >>> On 27/09/2020 06:16, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> The IETF community has a lot of closed groups - IESG, IRSG, IAB, = IETF=20 >>>> Trust, LLC Board, and for that matter the model for research groups = is=20 >>>> that they MAY be closed. Oh yes, most of the IAB programs appear to = be=20 >>>> mostly closed. Decisions for publication in 3 of the 4 streams are = made=20 >>>> by closed groups. For the IAB as much as 1/2 (guessing here - = didn't=20 >>>> count) of the IAB stream documents originate within the IAB itself = and=20 >>>> are not subject to mandatory external review prior to publication.=20= >>>> Irrespective of where the documents originate, a closed group makes = the=20 >>>> final decisions on publication for all but the documents in the=20 >>>> independent stream. >>>>=20 >>> The ISE in general has a lower bar, but isn't s/he essentially a = closed=20 >>> group of one? >>>=20 >> No. You are overlooking the ISEB (Independent Series Editorial = Board). >> True, the ISE's decision is final, but I've been an ISEB member for >> quite a few years, and the Editor has always consulted the Board >> whenever there was a tricky issue, and used it as a (non exclusive) >> source of reviewers. >>=20 > =46rom RFC6548 >=20 >> The ISE is supported by an Editorial Board for the review of >> Independent Submission stream documents. This board is known as = the >> Independent Submission Editorial Board. This volunteer Editorial >> Board exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and its members serve at = the >> pleasure of the ISE. The existence of this board is simply noted >> within this model, and additional discussion of such is considered >> out of scope of this document. >>=20 > So this is a choice of the ISE to seek commentary, not a requirement = of the process. Which in the end reduces to the ISE making the = decision, regardless of how he seeks to make that decision. The fact = that Adrian is smart enough to pay attention to his board, does not = actually change the documented process. >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> A difference compared to the IETF review process is that it more >> closely resembles an academic peer review process. The reviews >> aren't published, for example. But they usually aren't blinded, = either >> (i.e. the authors usually know who the reviewers are). >>=20 >> Getting back to Mike's message: >>=20 >>=20 >>>> Brian - Authored by anyone with perhaps some RSA input and = guidance, consensus of the WG, consensus determined by the WG chairs, = approved for publication by the ISE, published in the Independent = stream. >>>>=20 >> My draft doesn't say that ("ISE"), but leaves it rather open. In fact = I think this stream should be owned by what I called the RSAWG, so the = RSAWG chairs would declare consensus to publish. I don't think that this = would be a busy stream, except for an initial bunch of documents. >>=20 >> Brian >>=20 >>=20 > Hi Brian - your draft didn't say that, but your email did responding = to my question about an editorial stream: (if not the Editorial stream, = then where?): >=20 >=20 >> Again, it's model-dependent. In draft-thomson, it's clearly the IAB = stream as >> today. In the other two models, we are presumably left with the = Independent >> stream >>=20 >=20 > Apologies if I mis-represented anything. =20 >=20 > WRT to each of the current streams, there's either a body determines = by vote that a document is ready for publication in the stream, or the = ISE does (with whatever consultation he in his judgement determines is = necessary). =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > So digging down a bit on your last comment and assuming an Editorial = Stream (whatever its called) - you think that the WG (or the loud voices = therein) would direct for publication any document they felt was ready = for publication, and that decision (of agreement to publish) would be = made by the WG chairs. There would be no further decision = points? >=20 > Logically it looks like you've got a Editorial stream document = production group of N people and a voting (sort of) RSEB consisting of = the WG chairs actually deciding whether the documents get published. = And from your previous comments do I understand that the 4 other stream = editors would be treated the same as any other participant except that = their comments may be given heavier weight (or ignored for that matter) = during the discussion period even if one of their stream might be more = affected than another? >=20 > We've noted before that its relatively common to get WGs into forms of = consensus paralysis on trying to get out documents, and that the IAB and = IESG have at various times completely avoided the WG model, either = self-editing/self-publishing or creating relatively closed design teams = to make progress. They've invoked that model also on the "boring" = where the documents needed to get done, but there was no one all that = interested in doing them as part of their day job. If we choose an = open group model, I believe that a few nuclear options for such groups = need to be incorporated to ensure progress when necessary. That seems = anathema to the IETF model, but we've done similar things to complete = the meta tasks of legally organizing ourselves. Alternately, a closed = body vote to publish like we have for all the other streams is a worked = example. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Thanks for the comments - Mike >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Oct 6 05:58:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BE43A08AE; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cir_f4NdBC7q; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEA323A08B1; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee74f05006c4774dbac65c703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e74f:500:6c47:74db:ac65:c703]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kPmXS-0008RF-T4; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:57:54 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:57:51 +0200 Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4B0F7B5C-840C-4328-A7B9-E88B4D49D328@kuehlewind.net> References: <0E1ED3B9-3EC9-4C72-B718-5288CFDE12D4@cisco.com> To: "Salz, Rich" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1601989080;2e65d392; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kPmXS-0008RF-T4 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 11: is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 12:58:02 -0000 > On 2. Oct 2020, at 20:10, Salz, Rich = wrote: >=20 > I think they should be a paid expert. I only just realized that this = means, to me, that they should be an advisor, rather than actually = running things. +1 we need to have the option to pay an expert but I think if we pay = someone it should be an advisor role. >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 From nobody Tue Oct 6 06:04:21 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA1C3A08C0 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4XYkP_OphMs for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D7563A08B6 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 096D4Fmo022504; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:04:16 +0100 Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE032204E; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:04:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B992204C; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:04:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 096D4DYN028167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:04:14 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Carsten Bormann'" Cc: References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <033c01d69bd9$8f205e40$ad611ac0$@olddog.co.uk> <9A05CE9D-DDD9-4696-9144-08E78AFCB8B8@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <9A05CE9D-DDD9-4696-9144-08E78AFCB8B8@tzi.org> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:04:13 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <034c01d69be1$30f55660$92e00320$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-gb Thread-Index: AQLK7I1Ov9H+78aSe8jtI3v+4KPWkAGasMh+Adtd88ECbO4nfwLXCHymAnsa68ynSD9b8A== X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.5 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25708.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.278-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--7.278-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25708.007 X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.278000-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 6otD/cJAac3xIbpQ8BhdbAPZZctd3P4BC/ExpXrHizwpcABb4HOSD+/h R2foyD7JDffYBxVY/34DmLTQLokXSZKnoXqrApNgRXdiukZQCgGRvnIlycF8DRlLPW+8b7SaERq adVpIfz3dusudIBAixlmxqOYtOLuWfamNiXdYMbXM1jffIgQXhq4I22/hoDAQ1RGH3qe0s6YUFD 9AIWhocbUgpEbCTkPXMUGV2/tYy/5zbOi1xi7r+GzBijri5+RVpRgiDG6+4P41lau4JQLVRmo6a Q60EUCIexSYZSPdybDClAU6gbRxSE5pQOOsA1B3CUlzOrCnKXd9LQinZ4QefBrZLyuS+0VxsOzO ncrmCoP3FLeZXNZS4DjAdLIal4R68kIwkzu7LkbPliJbLcXoDcrKodzCzU2niZu5l2Gn2KsDujm F4FwTVQ== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:04:20 -0000 Not picking on you, Carsten, but... > I=E2=80=99d more comfortable with first identifying that person as a = =E2=80=9Cprofessional=E2=80=9D. This is another example of using a word believing it will be understood = in a particular way, but potentially suffering some additional unwanted = meanings. (It is less bad than the "thought leader" example.) I think that what you mean is that "the person will be experienced in = the field and will be paid for their work at the market rate." That is = the "paid expert" that Mirja refers to in her email. A -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann =20 Sent: 06 October 2020 13:39 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader On 2020-10-06, at 14:09, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > I am sure we don't have a common understanding of "Thought = Leader=E2=80=9D. Right. I=E2=80=99d more comfortable with first identifying that person as a = =E2=80=9Cprofessional=E2=80=9D. The next question is how much that professional can do on their own vs. = requiring consultation vs. requiring consensus processes, and what level = of initiative we expect from that position. (This is a question we tend to run into a lot at universities; the = keyword is =E2=80=9Cprofessionalization=E2=80=9D. And I can tell you we = are well aware of both the upsides and the downsides=E2=80=A6) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Tue Oct 6 10:02:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4163A0D8A for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:02:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91U2PmnIdUdC for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1E93A0CB3 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id 10so13591763qtx.12 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:02:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=D6GLbK1UEE41iICHFCJJkMtGMcaDBoF6ReSksM9cEG0=; b=OuB4H2u5lwOLdGiBNi919Z7KRNQyhjpXcwDS5NjAIv0Ng1jnm6nQKWhYzCFl6EEI/I DuaOvmjpWwnHhNSfYMD4iMZqdrNKbl7rUDFUkbHDk5WyrtO+ZMktjHouaNbN/r3VVvuC HHqgMfFtkqpn5ONEIaVU8oAGkcZ51vnuDjp7/sHbR6bx+nd8TbWAFjXB/6s+KhUTsG04 hTHIsLaKc1Oo7sXQ941wJ4fjpkFNlPV46bKcOe2FaSWtD8/pFIlIvnttSy32XwZgC5dd FEoftcw5r2t+IMU2XsIye14OT9kSFNNwuMcG1F2Hth+brhL8aGRwEjdydOUTwvOQfHTi QQ3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=D6GLbK1UEE41iICHFCJJkMtGMcaDBoF6ReSksM9cEG0=; b=QTYUYMhpJjfQ1TW1Op3Yond9WtdT8ffHpzWeUgB9ywzF/gxJBvN1dhK78QmrCN7bRo fRoWvw5x9C2rKTlGE7Zn8cWP8IFbbo0y/Ow+c0uXfxEFmgqVtXGWyOtwrgi8CEv1FjEC 6snNpxama9uGYC+7k14VxG7spCQbQIM8+WSGLefOjMZCLFkg5Atd5yGluUiONjNofxPv eO/AtBuuZywj4pgmz/R4GXM9rk8oMFx8ja3pdLYpKxBVLRkf7KeUAWB29FBDbVg8nbDi xYHnQPBS2EBXFGh/b0mZeAVJZF8UapAX/bmQJOf8d7CI+rE0gOxc1vpRacjPsKr6/mzS krUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XrlPRtjlB0I443+soU9voIFIPVirB92yE0d+xOtSTmT4nw0Aw MvLyDfFg/hV0dyVEX8M6PUr0EYkz8yKG4V3E X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz73YE6HSYdICBKQVy3+UtjGFkT87G/uvPz+6Ilj8lDWHcql1zVCJyRyakvaBIjBXpYi0Ldwg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7b3d:: with SMTP id l29mr6353012qtu.366.1602003741037; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k37sm1241258qta.27.2020.10.06.10.02.20 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:02:20 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:02:19 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:02:24 -0000 On 10/6/2020 7:45 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it’d be worried that we don’t see any progress if nobody in that open wg is committed to actually work on problems; Hence the need for someone actually paid to ensure progress. > and I don't think the chairs would or should be taking this role. I actually think its more like it would be difficult to find any volunteer whose funding source would find this a good use of their time for more than a year or so at a time. > While this might be some kind of leadership position, I don’t think this position must be help by the same person that brings in the specialized expertise, nor it would necessarily call this a thought leader. I had a parsing error for the above sentence.  I couldn't actually figure out what you were trying to say here.  I lost sync around reading "must be help".  Could you clarify please? Mike From nobody Tue Oct 6 10:05:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC393A0C6D for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jCzGCxa7B67T for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6D1F3A0BD7 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p200300dee74f05006c4774dbac65c703.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e74f:500:6c47:74db:ac65:c703]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kPqOW-0002zy-NZ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 19:04:56 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Mirja Kuehlewind In-Reply-To: <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:04:54 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> To: Michael StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1602003899;dd29e1a7; X-HE-SMSGID: 1kPqOW-0002zy-NZ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:05:02 -0000 See below. > On 6. Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > On 10/6/2020 7:45 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives = problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions = should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d be = worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open wg = is committed to actually work on problems; > Hence the need for someone actually paid to ensure progress. >> and I don't think the chairs would or should be taking this role. >=20 > I actually think its more like it would be difficult to find any = volunteer whose funding source would find this a good use of their time = for more than a year or so at a time. >=20 >> While this might be some kind of leadership position, I don=E2=80=99t = think this position must be help by the same person that brings in the = specialized expertise, nor it would necessarily call this a thought = leader. >=20 > I had a parsing error for the above sentence. I couldn't actually = figure out what you were trying to say here. I lost sync around reading = "must be help". Could you clarify please? Sorry, typo: I meatn "must be held=E2=80=9D. >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Oct 6 10:25:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C0A3A0E57 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TnkfiXBefRhU for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5CA13A0E0F for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id v123so17506073qkd.9 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=NkSRECPUWeWeDBnx3CU/lhB7Is1hURnAAJyB1X0L0eQ=; b=Iok7dFeKStFPQSEp7NCYPqnMZvCEYF1/aBaIjStSWTzthQLah/X40g+OBIhzeLOAow lbsljBCZQrWMT1c6jXm2KcG5E6h8S8kkb+Pd3hIYqSAuWqZhpBzPVBCIkpJS1adCFVUu xPpLkukU/Yr/knNYXxX4tXyM5sXCE5qbr627Xs+JebsVYnHf2q14t+bsbOVuTgFjeUD2 PazRZkdo5f9AvC2pipZ+DlO5wqf0g27ylbEPvty5uE2pG8HNPUov5oJiJkiM+KZjiwZs zyF62wFWYAHdQXCzW0TQX1Ap0HDA/pqak+1o99bEYDY9U6HbGr+Xc/N7UQzujhMtKGIn NLEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=NkSRECPUWeWeDBnx3CU/lhB7Is1hURnAAJyB1X0L0eQ=; b=QPydAek++/uNGyQh+mVNhTOqiuK6lzUeE3sWqWB/lH5t/HtS08MzqQxph7XnVgdTrC h3XHtidHW3MpTWr7+aQQIQVXOA9XCxetGKyS8iQxYKTV5xck87ouDXv1oLuFnFTvo3ws 9CmVpAfWOowksPE+vkEBO3nEkRLfilWgYVzQzcmbRsMIhAOrGe8LyNGM3kQPy7xoJsnc cmVNYgP/Ghtsb2M3RXJi9sVwr/4OMpuJzGUW6eWvdx/qwj7T3+OzlGL8EBA7T5H6cxk1 DP9bn7aK274ZitPAC+gAno8jkysEMUBEhUtPNVUJJsptiOeZcHou1T5qEdS/KFQdCEVm S03A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531c0KScLrhiSkOs3BF2zk5LuCDKBc5sWsm8GAyucYiROtEf4nEP awEY4S2EDOPm76biErmr3A2jHuPMxU7qiBrJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqTWDcrf3ukM0oroLvFVeJ8fiH46XhnzeQjMvSghV7CWcCFba5IajsV6e3nisWUV7RTl+/ow== X-Received: by 2002:a37:8705:: with SMTP id j5mr4720118qkd.8.1602005117833; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w6sm3095808qkb.6.2020.10.06.10.25.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:25:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind , rfced-future@iab.org References: <5133f0ac-9d26-5f34-3550-e0dc7b2049ef@nthpermutation.com> <431C046D76BEA50F4FB7C8E7@JcK-HP5> <4d7e4ae8-bef4-70db-522c-7ebc96d34cee@nthpermutation.com> <5e005700-9c35-e3cd-7500-8dda49a8d0b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <74f1f6f6-7613-e7df-5bfa-15703b4b795b@gmail.com> <8F913D4F-6FFC-417D-BA5E-83468BE3DA45@kuehlewind.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <4d6bf222-82eb-ff26-2f3f-86d43b042648@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:25:16 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8F913D4F-6FFC-417D-BA5E-83468BE3DA45@kuehlewind.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Questions and closed groups X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:25:22 -0000 On 10/6/2020 8:54 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Mike, hi all, Hi Mirja - > > Sorry for top-posting but I would quickly like to comment on two point = you've made (and all catching up after holidays=E2=80=A6). > > First, just because we have some closed groups in the IETF, I don=E2=80= =99t think that is necessarily an argument that this is the right approac= h for the RFC series. However, I also really don=E2=80=99t like the term = =E2=80=9Cclosed=E2=80=9D here because the purpose of those groups is not = to decide things in secret but rather to have a dedicated group of people= that have made a commitment to do work and spend time on certain topics.= I used "closed group" in the way that means "this fixed membership group = of people gather to make a set of decisions, and while they may take=20 input from the outside, the sole right to make a decision within a=20 particular domain rests with them". "Closed" is not about how the=20 decisions are made, but rather about who gets to make the decisions. > In both, the IESG and IAB, we have been and are implementing new meas= ures to increase transparency and also make sure we have good ways to col= lect feedback from the community where needed. I appreciate that, but that doesn't change either of the IAB or IESG=20 from being closed.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Nor from operating in a totally closed mod= e for=20 some of their responsibilities (e.g. selection of the ISE and RSE for=20 example by calling them personnel actions). > (The ISE is different but very much on purpose in order to actually b= e independent). There might be a need for a person or group that dictates= work and time for the RFC series as well, however, I=E2=80=99m still try= ing to understand how much work force is needed if we separate out the da= ily business (which I think is the most important step we should take her= e). I think you're asking two questions:=C2=A0 "what is the daily load for th= e=20 RSE vice the long-term strategic load? " as well as "can these two=20 actually be separated and what are the pro's and con's for doing so?"=C2=A0= =20 Speaking as someone who has occasionally had a job with both tactical=20 and strategic responsibilities in the same limited domain - it's rare=20 that you can slice off the day to day stuff and have the coherency you=20 need for the long term. > Such a person or group might be a leadership position, however, if that= is the case I would feel more comfortable if that would be run on a volu= ntarily based instead by a paid contractor as we also do for other leader= ship positions. Voluntarily based is a red-herring.=C2=A0 Almost all of the folk who do w= ork=20 for the IETF get compensated for it some how.=C2=A0 Your "volunteer" in t= his=20 case is going to end up finding someone to pay for the work (unless the=20 work becomes so trivial and intermittent that it's rounding error work). > > Second, the streams we have are all very different and as such have ver= y different procedures. That=E2=80=99s exactly the reason that we have di= fferent streams. The most noticeable different between the IETF streams a= nd others is that only the IETF can publish PSs and BCPs. The other strea= ms can only only publish INF or EXP and explicitly as such are not requir= ed to establish any kind of consensus. For the IAB particularly, we now a= nnounce adoption of drafts and have a request for community feedback befo= re publication, however, when an IAB document (I'm talking about recommen= dation or guidance documents, not process related docs) is published all = IAB members who where on the IAB at that time are listed and it=E2=80=99s= clearly indicated that it is the opinion of that group. For IETF stream = document, a single AD can block a document (at least temporally), however= , there is no way to unilaterally decide for publication, not even by the= IESG, as an IETF last call is always required. In case of the RFC series= , I think we really want community based decisions as well where those pe= ople, who write and read RFC as their daily business, have a say or at le= ast some kind of veto like the IETF last call. Except that these are all RFC's.=C2=A0 And in the final analysis, they al= l have to follow the general guidelines for publication as an RFC.=C2=A0 Th= e=20 fact that the input models are different, and that some RFCs have=20 additional tags added to them (BCP, Standard) doesn't change the fact=20 that the similarities far outweigh the differences. And while we have rules related to the IESG publication of standards,=20 it's unclear there is anything preventing the IESG from publishing an=20 IESG originated document even in the face of negative last calls.=C2=A0 T= here=20 definitely isn't anything preventing either the IRSG or the IAB from=20 self-publication without additional approvals. The last call is not a veto in any sense of the word, and characterizing = it as such is misleading.=C2=A0 The IESG may publish any document simply = by=20 declaring its understanding of consensus.=C2=A0 It may get in trouble the= =20 next time the Nomcom meets, but that won't keep the document from being=20 published. Later, Mike > > Mirja > > > >> On 28. Sep 2020, at 18:25, Michael StJohns wr= ote: >> >> Hi Brian - >> >> Inline. >> >> On 9/27/2020 3:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 27-Sep-20 20:40, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everybody, >>>> >>>> On 27/09/2020 06:16, Michael StJohns wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The IETF community has a lot of closed groups - IESG, IRSG, IAB, IE= TF >>>>> Trust, LLC Board, and for that matter the model for research groups= is >>>>> that they MAY be closed. Oh yes, most of the IAB programs appear to= be >>>>> mostly closed. Decisions for publication in 3 of the 4 streams are = made >>>>> by closed groups. For the IAB as much as 1/2 (guessing here - di= dn't >>>>> count) of the IAB stream documents originate within the IAB itself = and >>>>> are not subject to mandatory external review prior to publication. >>>>> Irrespective of where the documents originate, a closed group makes= the >>>>> final decisions on publication for all but the documents in the >>>>> independent stream. >>>>> >>>> The ISE in general has a lower bar, but isn't s/he essentially a clo= sed >>>> group of one? >>>> >>> No. You are overlooking the ISEB (Independent Series Editorial Board)= =2E >>> True, the ISE's decision is final, but I've been an ISEB member for >>> quite a few years, and the Editor has always consulted the Board >>> whenever there was a tricky issue, and used it as a (non exclusive) >>> source of reviewers. >>> >> From RFC6548 >> >>> The ISE is supported by an Editorial Board for the review of >>> Independent Submission stream documents. This board is known as = the >>> Independent Submission Editorial Board. This volunteer Editorial= >>> Board exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and its members serve at= the >>> pleasure of the ISE. The existence of this board is simply noted= >>> within this model, and additional discussion of such is considere= d >>> out of scope of this document. >>> >> So this is a choice of the ISE to seek commentary, not a requirement o= f the process. Which in the end reduces to the ISE making the decision, = regardless of how he seeks to make that decision. The fact that Adrian i= s smart enough to pay attention to his board, does not actually change th= e documented process. >> >> >> >>> A difference compared to the IETF review process is that it more >>> closely resembles an academic peer review process. The reviews >>> aren't published, for example. But they usually aren't blinded, eithe= r >>> (i.e. the authors usually know who the reviewers are). >>> >>> Getting back to Mike's message: >>> >>> >>>>> Brian - Authored by anyone with perhaps some RSA input and guidance= , consensus of the WG, consensus determined by the WG chairs, approved fo= r publication by the ISE, published in the Independent stream. >>>>> >>> My draft doesn't say that ("ISE"), but leaves it rather open. In fact= I think this stream should be owned by what I called the RSAWG, so the R= SAWG chairs would declare consensus to publish. I don't think that this w= ould be a busy stream, except for an initial bunch of documents. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >> Hi Brian - your draft didn't say that, but your email did responding t= o my question about an editorial stream: (if not the Editorial stream, t= hen where?): >> >> >>> Again, it's model-dependent. In draft-thomson, it's clearly the IAB s= tream as >>> today. In the other two models, we are presumably left with the Indep= endent >>> stream >>> >> Apologies if I mis-represented anything. >> >> WRT to each of the current streams, there's either a body determines b= y vote that a document is ready for publication in the stream, or the ISE= does (with whatever consultation he in his judgement determines is neces= sary). >> >> >> >> So digging down a bit on your last comment and assuming an Editorial S= tream (whatever its called) - you think that the WG (or the loud voices t= herein) would direct for publication any document they felt was ready for= publication, and that decision (of agreement to publish) would be made = by the WG chairs. There would be no further decision points? >> >> Logically it looks like you've got a Editorial stream document product= ion group of N people and a voting (sort of) RSEB consisting of the WG ch= airs actually deciding whether the documents get published. And from yo= ur previous comments do I understand that the 4 other stream editors woul= d be treated the same as any other participant except that their comments= may be given heavier weight (or ignored for that matter) during the disc= ussion period even if one of their stream might be more affected than ano= ther? >> >> We've noted before that its relatively common to get WGs into forms of= consensus paralysis on trying to get out documents, and that the IAB and= IESG have at various times completely avoided the WG model, either self-= editing/self-publishing or creating relatively closed design teams to mak= e progress. They've invoked that model also on the "boring" where the d= ocuments needed to get done, but there was no one all that interested in = doing them as part of their day job. If we choose an open group model,= I believe that a few nuclear options for such groups need to be incorpor= ated to ensure progress when necessary. That seems anathema to the IETF= model, but we've done similar things to complete the meta tasks of legal= ly organizing ourselves. Alternately, a closed body vote to publish like= we have for all the other streams is a worked example. >> >> >> >> Thanks for the comments - Mike >> >> >> >> --=20 >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Tue Oct 6 13:05:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800F43A0E47 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwM2_6B3wwNI for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC8D63A0E3B for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id x5so1449901pjv.3 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:05:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8DvjDYaHg/pXnUFHqu3ltBKFOWkm6MDoIeaD5Pw+NnE=; b=eSHIn5FiQvJ+E1JLYiw/8Y2kU5qSiptNmelSvHA8wfABSrevnv08DaQ3UsRDZ6wFFZ /1nf+oqJfTCAjpKYh/eItZKLno8BRAx7vlKyG7V5rkzMkwz27stXqg/Av+X1aAD/Agaz bb2B/b5N6W33ulWv6mzSU/n5LGCyl3DJidnAndXQZ5MdPU3rpmZN5rzzjKSEIk5KiZ9a YH7r8WZ4glODMfdEJ4wsCTkcyQYzY7YLZywEWF4OpElJrsx7dltdJfzsyd/I7q4oxfRh 0t/HRgP0e9eH3rLMv++VGdNPjYb3BXOFIHLHLWuq6GA7CJ6Y+6uRg2SAp3wCSrm753Hy zBDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8DvjDYaHg/pXnUFHqu3ltBKFOWkm6MDoIeaD5Pw+NnE=; b=dtSHzpBXPYK48c55A1btNntxvhwWaHW4XBE1rnRdMTGHV2cwCSNylMJMsLRr092i9M 3MGgFpEOpH2+m1Z7Zd8U86pledacIczMVQ/Z2eoqilYAVsobKlbOMG0w8eXfB5+ycvUe FkWen0t5ajP8q7aWBr+jWjirWa/47hzPh2J+C3nxKCnAnd1+T6a/T1y10cNcUojhx+aK Xs3UOsV1GQnRWuUypXBA3401t50IREPn3zLdGp7d910Ii6a8rhVT4jWiIj8U7r/tU6zY 8qHyu7cgl2Ki4GIBgUqBsilsZRTLRyb82k6DRFz3yZfoCEi5aGi7U5Qt3fYSuhnh6V75 zVtw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530esjo7CNM/VOI7Lcu0hxHhtyMuC2h7pjQVS86DcDN1F7cU6u2K ThIsSXbmvgAOxdLaJrX61Oov8fH1mHR0AQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3+EpTSVzVODLvafbhkrCRexHLmJRfaY8cE3D68/xzHd6XPivyGjJ1SyeXIeCoD6VmbXF+BA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:be17:: with SMTP id a23mr5685704pjs.214.1602014719929; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h9sm7709pfc.28.2020.10.06.13.05.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Mirja Kuehlewind , Michael StJohns Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <0b246588-b107-8c71-6c06-cb319ea94ac9@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:05:14 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 20:05:22 -0000 On 07-Oct-20 06:04, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > See below. >=20 >> On 6. Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael StJohns wro= te: >> >> On 10/6/2020 7:45 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>> I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives= problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions = should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d be = worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open wg = is committed to actually work on problems; >> Hence the need for someone actually paid to ensure progress. And that is very distinct from someone paid to provide expertise. To revert to the comparison with the IETF's legal counsel, we've never explicitly asked our counsel to propose IETF IPR policy or even to lead discussion in the IPR WG; we've only asked them to explain the legal implications of proposed policy. So if we take it as a given that we have an expert advisor (the "RSA"), do we want that person to lead the discussion by proposing RFC strategy, writing drafts, etc.? That's a more active role than just advising. Brian P.S. "Thought leader" is not a modern invention. It goes back at least to= 1876, according to Wikipedia. >>> and I don't think the chairs would or should be taking this role. >> >> I actually think its more like it would be difficult to find any volun= teer whose funding source would find this a good use of their time for mo= re than a year or so at a time. >> >>> While this might be some kind of leadership position, I don=E2=80=99t= think this position must be help by the same person that brings in the s= pecialized expertise, nor it would necessarily call this a thought leader= =2E >> >> I had a parsing error for the above sentence. I couldn't actually fig= ure out what you were trying to say here. I lost sync around reading "mu= st be help". Could you clarify please? >=20 > Sorry, typo: I meatn "must be held=E2=80=9D. >=20 >> >> Mike >> >> >> --=20 >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 From nobody Tue Oct 6 17:11:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23293A156E for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:11:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=DOPRda5z; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=hVVe2gG8 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rz3EmSeP9ULL for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7AEE3A156D for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8230C6DD; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 20:11:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=tM 6Wq6Wdq1aWKGqeea/19c9mVM56210MeI487ipYHzw=; b=DOPRda5zzbb2N2j78o OEGEzrtPLQh4Ga4w7dz91/8O+Q2vUT1mvcwAztw4RJ318U5ueodNTPYnWCGJcq0o R4HSx5Sj41ZLWMiPv647IIIX52WaiZXxs47NMKcMSNeBCW9t5CxSaLKfAi2CsMO5 CGueRnNOn1q2G72NFNz7LazIl9uWLC8Yhkg4rVFfukqmJzABds7bHekqzvbDHupj xneYOQ/UDMPdJeqljLUn+/9DlQP2LhrH4kbnD1ojd33RJyjcQADLVd15yHpA8A9I Fjwh02wDyuT2w1Pcsincj3IKqflo7ua5nz61fu63ROhoZjIsrrzEzHfZ1xEPdCGI obRg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=tM6Wq6Wdq1aWKGqeea/19c9mVM56210MeI487ipYH zw=; b=hVVe2gG8heWS6Ebv6TblO81QXHbgRIbGiKg5VQMlbxA/3u8l5byLR4ujB eHu5r43bqbliyaGUC3E7LsvybexFb/8YCYmp1+83y3BplvGI+w8tM6/G/wE9L6uS HtmWh1wOzdTb0iDohY7J2jMJ4yrDmUQhdaQikCOE7B/eyFJI6kYcwaifiDvPUFNZ TsFSbZkJA3UKTmV42tNTrbNJbidPuHbYpAkJQJf/1kLxFmSKOwuYTKtuFsIK52P6 Wp6llEQb4VdQigPanjvcS5xqvQSQ0VHl22wlqWKq99eX5w7jJOcqESFqBldw5Sxa eLP38mJNd3V72a0YT0wUTvWkGGJNA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeehgdefudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghr thhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfejueduieffledtgeelheejvdettdejudduhefggeefgfekgfeu ieetgefftddtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 75B8E20066; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:11:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <2cc26f42-cfe5-486a-866e-88af959e5f54@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1C28877A-C996-43F2-9EA0-FA6BE315F5F0@cisco.com> References: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> <1C28877A-C996-43F2-9EA0-FA6BE315F5F0@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:11:01 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: "Eliot Lear" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:11:25 -0000 On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, at 22:20, Eliot Lear wrote: > And just how long would you like the group to wait? I am asking that you slow down a little. For foundational questions, a = week is fast. 2 days is ridiculous. And maybe set some expectations ah= ead of time. In this case, I can't promise anything this week. > > Is the fantastical thing being constructed by this process supposed = to pass for consensus? >=20 > It will if you don=E2=80=99t engage. Good to know. From nobody Wed Oct 7 02:01:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B295C3A16C7 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 02:01:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXkSYjVmNAz2 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 02:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054D53A16C6 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 02:01:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1896; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602061307; x=1603270907; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vq9A8ub/oHJUMpB02+MHxHI3rjdszmA3koGcNGG6BHM=; b=G5AaDFP2hVJmUN62/pHAGQ0lv/txQ9kMYUO/gtcoST/ALEUCFdcdZ/Jx UD/mNOaAaS69ShdwKFK5cSCtW9Vfd+4LvEeyeowiSU5q74u9I20sOmf92 9FZxMg5M65d68B1PNjjMgZGn0yi3nrsEdoyuTK/hek4iDvDP/YHhHzAu/ Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BbBAB+g31f/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+DbwEgEoRpiQKIE5xMCwEBAQ0BAS8EAQGESgKCCCY4EwI?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVzBg4VQhQQGQwCJgICVwaDOYJ9qCF2gTKFVIU?= =?us-ascii?q?EgQ4qjU6CAIERJwwQgiABgW4Bhk8zgi0Et1CCcoMUl1IDH5Irjn6vUoNfAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?GBQIVgWsjgVczGggbFTsqAYI/PRIZDY43jjE/A2cCBgEJAQEDCY5IAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,346,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30107195" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 Oct 2020 09:01:43 +0000 Received: from [10.61.220.42] ([10.61.220.42]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09791g15002152 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:01:42 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <2cc26f42-cfe5-486a-866e-88af959e5f54@www.fastmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:01:42 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> <1C28877A-C996-43F2-9EA0-FA6BE315F5F0@cisco.com> <2cc26f42-cfe5-486a-866e-88af959e5f54@www.fastmail.com> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.220.42, [10.61.220.42] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] On issue tracking X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:01:49 -0000 Martin, I understand your (and others') concern. To begin with, in this particular case, I think it should be clear that = there are dependencies. People may want a person or not, depending on = what the person is asked to do. We=E2=80=99ll have to allow for those = dependencies to play out. Recognizing this, my intent was to move, = perhaps clumsily, to the dependencies. Now that we have an issues list, we should find a path to address the = issues in an orderly and timely fashion. IMHO the best way forward is a = virtual meeting every two =E2=80=93 four weeks at various times of the = day, covering as many issues as time allows. That is- if we all agree = on stuff, we keep moving, and if we don=E2=80=99t we slow down. Of = course, anything discussed in an interim needs to be confirmed on list. = My thinking is that people get a week after an interim to say something, = and then we move on. If someone does say something and we can=E2=80=99t resolve on list to a = point of rough consensus, we=E2=80=99ll pick it up at the next interim. = Of course that will require participation in that interim. Thus the = standing agenda of the virtual meeting would be to trudge through those = issues. The one thing I would ask is that people take a few minutes to review = the minutes of each meeting as they come out, so that any concerns can = be raised in a timely fashion. To be sure, this group is not the only = thing going on in people=E2=80=99s lives, and so we will need to strike = a balance between allowing a certain amount of leeway and seeing that = our work gets done. We can do that by adjusting the tempo of the = meetings.=20 There is definitely some inconvenience involving time zones. I guess we = should use that as a motivator to close things on list where possible = ;-) How does this sound to people? Eliot From nobody Wed Oct 7 04:59:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C606D3A0AAA for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 04:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FMYwKLFsp25a for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 04:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40D883A0AA3 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 04:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id a15so1692945ljk.2 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 04:59:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u9XcGT6QxCCeEg3HyXNR2cry2JI3NQkNtL6geYKzNTs=; b=yndFvg0jqjhT6yhJOlLzsQz+SByV6wd6TBsxv1ECeKgNSwIRP2gbwpEj2Q2V8jt3MR gfwqaTkn/MG/UenJImWy8DTin+FcvHf7QaXo/9BAnmReoZm5I1dBpu5mcCeGVITQenO2 MDsEWslLiX3GZJn/Z/d9Z0w51J/mp1OvcsZzFTaTIM5rS6maEtBecbqaCRceSO+nkCN8 smfIHp/BEm0HAOvVzJ9VQxZiAjYfE+xsw1k0s6e8pAPXYdSoHmpsC1c3BTrTkihWoqLJ XkNkLNt/Ehjatx4+DKGXdsZnhr6q75R1iXo3TUb9pdpMjV2L9FVL8mn9vjxRDmIcchN/ BZXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u9XcGT6QxCCeEg3HyXNR2cry2JI3NQkNtL6geYKzNTs=; b=VUo4IXNCDTKFEOT8yq8sxhskowggT0eRIketldFMqEWVQYyVy4Qx1Ol5Jzv9PVCDxf SNAxr5TE07AAH0BSm9OoMruzvLWC14kXRY534CHWWtlkmF4zj5sMo6mvqKn6k3EnxHq1 g97Pcz1xuGHyWyEr6gQMEP6YZshxt1AfQ3eP0HCJeHNxCZMIaWdeGKQZf+kTvEihyqkG dPY7kCdICZ+UqpYeyPji8tmUu/PRq34fYVtYNmxBP3fHJQcZ/G/8JoQdDhGaZjxZVodY JCjqxBFByuvjLdSSYhlb5L7bw3HZotN9b5cR2K/fURORMlcm02EEP9zyMGPEwDKB2Gt9 ScCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ygAJ0bjjYcifWnKKGwEIaaOVUXUseyM1NrqMnemn3dyDKEC0S OmCQ5tElWHnNTvxYNd6BE2ObvhCbiNzmjKHZMejxAA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8nKBFzApLcMVJqpLQF1koGCZOcozyLFEUaRdzZDcqbPVNAxW2M+s17gAPfDcu4EM64nQRdirMDO/DI4PuDn0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9942:: with SMTP id r2mr1008632ljj.409.1602071971292; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 04:59:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <79b22ae7-6200-4803-831f-0ef6e9295400@www.fastmail.com> <1C28877A-C996-43F2-9EA0-FA6BE315F5F0@cisco.com> <2cc26f42-cfe5-486a-866e-88af959e5f54@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2cc26f42-cfe5-486a-866e-88af959e5f54@www.fastmail.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 04:58:55 -0700 Message-ID: To: Martin Thomson Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c0fb2e05b1137227" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:59:35 -0000 --000000000000c0fb2e05b1137227 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:11 PM Martin Thomson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, at 22:20, Eliot Lear wrote: > > And just how long would you like the group to wait? > > I am asking that you slow down a little. For foundational questions, a > week is fast. 2 days is ridiculous. And maybe set some expectations ahead > of time. > Precisely this. We have an established practice for doing this kind of thing and it involves setting an explicit deadline far enough out that people have a reasonable time to respond. Neither of those things happened in this case. -Ekr --000000000000c0fb2e05b1137227 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:11 PM Martin= Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>= wrote:
On Tue, = Oct 6, 2020, at 22:20, Eliot Lear wrote:
> And just how long would you like the group to wait?

I am asking that you slow down a little.=C2=A0 For foundational questions, = a week is fast.=C2=A0 2 days is ridiculous.=C2=A0 And maybe set some expect= ations ahead of time.

Precisely this. W= e have an established practice for doing this kind of thing and it involves= setting an explicit deadline far enough out that people have a reasonable = time to respond. Neither of those things happened in this case.
<= div>
-Ekr



<= /div>
--000000000000c0fb2e05b1137227-- From nobody Wed Oct 7 09:29:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7463A0ACC for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:29:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KpsP2lX5grnS for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAD553A0A71 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id g3so2368369qtq.10 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Yjg1BrjlFJhGM+uuYPRpAs4qp5KnpEbM6l6PTsoaM/E=; b=cR64A1KeIuRY1CL7bMX25OKt9yD5B4CCRV/Fit8AvnfXjAytkisrIA59pg86xIa2Va +Y5OO1V/Q0Pw7bWFEF/fZVaevRtNp2vE1FBNwAIAo2qE/HaQLTX4Pw4aJz70969IUfei U/HcHcDqeR83JqM2lhdBzUYURU6ZsMPnzw69puNs/FN0FYIe+V3q2Q5agJLf28dp46aC JhaK73ZLbZSiyiNecztQNGVCt0+m+SsqsP5WJboT0pdBGdytivWtWTgivTA/5cvHnWCD ClwRZwF8TDrP0UKjTsFfECMHtP7Ts68f5O3nkUabbNjs1ZhAUYzFIIVW2h0SrNUTJ7bf pw1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=Yjg1BrjlFJhGM+uuYPRpAs4qp5KnpEbM6l6PTsoaM/E=; b=BFL8cBSPUNnWKSUK1adaJSoSv191MQMGeqHKGqE+jBuM27lZ4yjSjuNlJcEff76dFw WMLqqX+JYq8uuP0xJAOKRVNy1/EJ60UtVvdrp47LSQki8LXsoUrLalolwBteetTgwWQ+ 0VTbDjtDAOlugzFCluW4r+wum5I2RfNv92w1/kH3ZfE/3fLvW1+j9gkXf5THHjhmEXOC OjlQdABuqcriVH2UiuSnVNKVwf7pf6+x1uAr/2J1A27g84dsKCGMNZwnryVtEPB2CVTt AbqNZerrTf22AUZmO1ARJrD8ygV0e1ypbw95DSjgLCQ3APU3ZQc/HRhkK0+zmwvhDRYk LoSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530lFpXjDeTIimXODGMDtVL63dEtc337l4PKX1yFRWntSSJrpK9/ 94NKkmApLhqtP+QwfLww27mX7iUnGKp5BDWr X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJylZKgy/98FYEY/UAj1p+Y/qlm6fljxTcNllQ0cFf8kFBQPZxJ+8juUwZRKsK+RxiF/WNt8HQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6d29:: with SMTP id r9mr4240761qtu.336.1602088158278; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p38sm1972204qtb.20.2020.10.07.09.29.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Brian E Carpenter , Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> <0b246588-b107-8c71-6c06-cb319ea94ac9@gmail.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <6e4be777-d749-5d12-1bcb-297aee19e4f7@nthpermutation.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:29:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0b246588-b107-8c71-6c06-cb319ea94ac9@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:29:23 -0000 Hi Brian - In line. On 10/6/2020 4:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 07-Oct-20 06:04, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >> See below. >> >>> On 6. Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> >>> On 10/6/2020 7:45 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>>> I also think we need a person or group of people that actually drives problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decisions should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it’d be worried that we don’t see any progress if nobody in that open wg is committed to actually work on problems; >>> Hence the need for someone actually paid to ensure progress. > And that is very distinct from someone paid to provide expertise. I disagree.  Anyone who's been subjected to a product manager that doesn't know the technology will get my point that while expertise and responsibility *might* be distinct, having them be so is a recipe for poor performance. > > To revert to the comparison with the IETF's legal counsel, we've > never explicitly asked our counsel to propose IETF IPR policy or even > to lead discussion in the IPR WG; we've only asked them to explain the > legal implications of proposed policy. Unfortunately, you've picked the wrong example.  A better example is an outside counsel (lawyer) who's been charged with "defend our patents" or even a marketing or advertising professional who's been told to "help sell our products".    Both of these are multi-year engagements, both require the engaged professional to take the lead in the actions initiated by the customer.  And the customer will generally lack the specific expertise to engage successfully themselves. For IPR, we all have at least a little of the layman's idea of what that entails, and have a pretty good idea of the result we want out of the discussion.  I'm pretty sure that while the lawyer took your input on what you wanted, the actual language of the IPR policy was based on legal principles, the lawyers own skill set and then finally language provided by the team that didn't conflict with the first two. > > So if we take it as a given that we have an expert advisor (the "RSA"), > do we want that person to lead the discussion by proposing RFC strategy, > writing drafts, etc.? That's a more active role than just advising. I'm not taking as given that this person is solely an advisor. I *really* don't think we have enough internal expertise (e.g. knowledge of publication at least equivalent to the layman's knowledge of IPR) to make that model work.  I also would be surprised if we have anyone (volunteers I mean) that wants to hang onto the job long enough and will bring enough energy to the position to keep the RFC series on track over a long period of time. Later, Mike > Brian > > P.S. "Thought leader" is not a modern invention. It goes back at least to 1876, according to Wikipedia. > > >>>> and I don't think the chairs would or should be taking this role. >>> I actually think its more like it would be difficult to find any volunteer whose funding source would find this a good use of their time for more than a year or so at a time. >>> >>>> While this might be some kind of leadership position, I don’t think this position must be help by the same person that brings in the specialized expertise, nor it would necessarily call this a thought leader. >>> I had a parsing error for the above sentence. I couldn't actually figure out what you were trying to say here. I lost sync around reading "must be help". Could you clarify please? >> Sorry, typo: I meatn "must be held”. >> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rfced-future mailing list >>> Rfced-future@iab.org >>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Wed Oct 7 14:01:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA623A13C1 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:01:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wViy3gDolFkh for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B5C3A13C4 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id o25so2349929pgm.0 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9eF2C66Dn9qno3koqynp9FUM7Rp0yAFes4N2GUJYH7U=; b=Jwi8eWQPP59BzHntvgJ2V0GykDyMOyq1ory1QiC2R6STp7ZVfe5KOUx/XU5BhQ/uMI TgCicdgJnIu/uVvJde1tjZEWeAqRU8LY8OP2rfdMMoqBDfKySGcByEVjFudT5fuQ7hQ0 7lLMbHLG3v/gLB0BsO/5a4E88pRQURVO1vmSEa/SlxqS6OT7n1zpUw9Pcp9ffgP3qVbh B+o3C8hOsgf5hHI4xXAp80NcRxaZaLtgvfZcZorDIuD9FZP8JjQ1HgX5PSbT9RHwLZcy z00ItWUhab5i4AcP0qX/QjgfAl55+U8sUuAYoOrRSJq04RHxf+ZG2mcryESPscbf/Hcp KxPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9eF2C66Dn9qno3koqynp9FUM7Rp0yAFes4N2GUJYH7U=; b=X2PR9KuGNK4PE8IOt7LFcw9DKWm+azaMdddGOJKZpw/bncOAjfiSva5aHKP7Ediy9U o+xIHaU7P9qYZa3bQgMuJN2eka7X5K0m8aYKWm4pPB1/2EDyC6MoirDyKoQiFXe3a9Zi 15JJK2I7cIyhsZfDIDGPVcmjaTKzc8LbnIMJyB/zKS8/xwlOWz9HaM1Jkob9OPaQtwYR 4Pw5Uu/WdgsND2Myq3RtJm9CJAY/995EdGY4zmYZ+vHzB9V9HbZGV9oPwAR3uGxrRQBX jCkvwckwbMGGhikT5jxcQbb8XAVOR+1u58c3GhI4Xk2iSLcQENcBSttMOlKzv4dq7Rk+ mnvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304aTfP+FaYgKUxsOtJatBJTGt3cnf8Lb60AWqE5kcIWVc5xC0b QQWkipaq2tnVFc3rqzn91BDVTimcYAUAAA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7EdirVuYW0KR+tmQoYojoJE0VkMvpcEXuduN8ryPTxcj85/HP1Bx1QA+D76olz9lkoS3QqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:7cd4:0:b029:154:f9ee:320b with SMTP id x203-20020a627cd40000b0290154f9ee320bmr4751484pfc.26.1602104497582; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c21sm4360752pfo.139.2020.10.07.14.01.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael StJohns , Mirja Kuehlewind Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <1EB5D615-632A-4458-B615-574D9DCB3239@kuehlewind.net> <31c51bc8-5ffb-0575-f5da-c26c01b2f856@nthpermutation.com> <0b246588-b107-8c71-6c06-cb319ea94ac9@gmail.com> <6e4be777-d749-5d12-1bcb-297aee19e4f7@nthpermutation.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:01:32 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6e4be777-d749-5d12-1bcb-297aee19e4f7@nthpermutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:01:43 -0000 Hi Mike, On 08-Oct-20 05:29, Michael StJohns wrote: > Hi Brian - In line. >=20 > On 10/6/2020 4:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 07-Oct-20 06:04, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>> See below. >>> >>>> On 6. Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael StJohns w= rote: >>>> >>>> On 10/6/2020 7:45 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >>>>> I also think we need a person or group of people that actually driv= es problems for discussion and proposes solutions. While I think decision= s should be made community-based, e.g. in a wg like setup, it=E2=80=99d b= e worried that we don=E2=80=99t see any progress if nobody in that open w= g is committed to actually work on problems; >>>> Hence the need for someone actually paid to ensure progress. >> And that is very distinct from someone paid to provide expertise. >=20 > I disagree.=C2=A0 Anyone who's been subjected to a product manager that= =20 > doesn't know the technology will get my point that while expertise and = > responsibility *might* be distinct, having them be so is a recipe for=20 > poor performance. I was unclear. Yes, of course the line manager needs to understand the work and the technology. But I was trying to work through the issues in sequence. Do we need external expertise first, does *the same person* need to be the line manager second. I maintain that they are distinct questions. I would also argue that while the line manager does need expertise, they don't need to be able to answer questions about the Chicago Manual of Style or whether ISSNs and DOIs are Good Things. =20 >> >> To revert to the comparison with the IETF's legal counsel, we've >> never explicitly asked our counsel to propose IETF IPR policy or even >> to lead discussion in the IPR WG; we've only asked them to explain the= >> legal implications of proposed policy. >=20 > Unfortunately, you've picked the wrong example.=C2=A0 A better example = is an=20 > outside counsel (lawyer) who's been charged with "defend our patents" o= r=20 > even a marketing or advertising professional who's been told to "help=20 > sell our products".=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Both of these are multi-year enga= gements, both=20 > require the engaged professional to take the lead in the actions=20 > initiated by the customer.=C2=A0 And the customer will generally lack t= he=20 > specific expertise to engage successfully themselves. >=20 > For IPR, we all have at least a little of the layman's idea of what tha= t=20 > entails, and have a pretty good idea of the result we want out of the=20 > discussion.=C2=A0 I'm pretty sure that while the lawyer took your input= on=20 > what you wanted, the actual language of the IPR policy was based on=20 > legal principles, the lawyers own skill set and then finally language=20 > provided by the team that didn't conflict with the first two. You'd have to ask Scott Bradner for details of how that went. I'm not sure I agree that "we" knew what we wanted in advance. I was pretty ignorant in that area when I started in the IETF. >> So if we take it as a given that we have an expert advisor (the "RSA")= , >> do we want that person to lead the discussion by proposing RFC strateg= y, >> writing drafts, etc.? That's a more active role than just advising. >=20 > I'm not taking as given that this person is solely an advisor. I=20 > *really* don't think we have enough internal expertise (e.g. knowledge = > of publication at least equivalent to the layman's knowledge of IPR) to= =20 > make that model work.=C2=A0 I also would be surprised if we have anyone= =20 > (volunteers I mean) that wants to hang onto the job long enough and wil= l=20 > bring enough energy to the position to keep the RFC series on track ove= r=20 > a long period of time. Indeed, that is the point under discussion. Brian C >=20 > Later, Mike >=20 >=20 >> Brian >> >> P.S. "Thought leader" is not a modern invention. It goes back at least= to 1876, according to Wikipedia. >> >> >>>>> and I don't think the chairs would or should be taking this role. >>>> I actually think its more like it would be difficult to find any vol= unteer whose funding source would find this a good use of their time for = more than a year or so at a time. >>>> >>>>> While this might be some kind of leadership position, I don=E2=80=99= t think this position must be help by the same person that brings in the = specialized expertise, nor it would necessarily call this a thought leade= r. >>>> I had a parsing error for the above sentence. I couldn't actually f= igure out what you were trying to say here. I lost sync around reading "= must be help". Could you clarify please? >>> Sorry, typo: I meatn "must be held=E2=80=9D. >>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> --=20 >>>> Rfced-future mailing list >>>> Rfced-future@iab.org >>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Oct 8 12:37:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB023A0CB1 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25f0vxJistyQ for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 347533A0CB2 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AE53C315E; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:36:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyb6b1LFt-ee; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2605:e000:1524:de:c863:776e:7f8e:beb3] (unknown [IPv6:2605:e000:1524:de:c863:776e:7f8e:beb3]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EC533C315D; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:36:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Sandy Ginoza Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:37:05 -0700 Cc: Alice Russo To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:37:09 -0000 Greetings all, We=E2=80=99ve been invited by the IETF Executive Director and the = Program Chairs to share some thoughts to help with the community = discussion underway. =20 The RPC read the proposals and has somewhat kept up with the discussion = taking place on the list. While being sensitive to the fact that we are = a vendor, we have a few thoughts from the RPC perspective that we hope = will be helpful as discussion about v3 of the RFC Editor model = continues. =20 Over the past 10 years, AMS has been part of implementing RFC Editor = models v1 and v2. During this time, the RPC has found it helpful to = have someone engaged in the activities below (in no particular order), = which allowed the RPC to focus on document production and process, and = implementation of new developments. =20 Note: we use =E2=80=9Csomeone=E2=80=9D because that is how the model was = structured. =20 a) evolve the series, considering community goals, series continuity, = and best practices for publication and archiving (for example, the = digital preservation considerations documented in RFC 8153) b) when the strategic goals influence RPC priorities, weigh tradeoffs = and explain the tradeoffs to the community; determine whether to = implement changes based on tradeoffs and feedback received (for example, = DOIs where the tradeoff was cost, both for the DOIs and contracted = programming for automated uploads, and programming effort by the RPC to = hold and display the data in various places) c) monitor and engage in various community lists; outreach as needed to = address concerns, and consider suggestions for further development d) discern which suggestions are worth investigating further and = implementing e) update the Style Guide based on best common practice and input from = the community and RPC f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict=20 g) dive into RPC operations as needed, for example: - mediate author/RPC disputes (e.g., some authors object to the = adopted Style Guide when applied to their documents or the Style Guide = doesn=E2=80=99t address their issue; the RPC can usually, but not = always, work through discrepancies with the authors) - provide input regarding best practices for archiving, display, etc. = (fyi: there was a lot of discussion with the then-RSE about items like = this in preparation for v3 transition) h) make a decision or call consensus in a timely manner to keep things = moving Here are a few specific community suggestions we are aware of that may = benefit from SME guidance:=20 - revamp of the AUTH48 process - addition of ePub as a publication format=20 - a process by which bis documents can be turned around more quickly=20 - revamp of the errata system=20 - Style Guide updates - v3 XML formatting guidance=20 This information is provided simply to help the discussion along. =20 Thank you, Sandy Ginoza, Director RFC Production Center Association Management Solutions, LLC 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000= From nobody Fri Oct 9 09:08:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535E53A0B5A for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=isi-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ltWgRoe_RGVJ for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D175A3A0A50 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id qp15so13854232ejb.3 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isi-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ACRN9G6b3hx5K25Mo5KKk6cZr1wXntiLkWqFcSFfjCE=; b=haJCPL2a1xZkhglxwaw0oEpVeyGtD5mZhf9euss7W02EkSZ71d7/3jR4V9KlWr22UP GS2s35OY7spWpeNrQqEkhuQoOFKrjEYhlEnoKmUqeKbnRyYtDLRDI2i6DGN5U7N/aezs cTOGPdmN9VZrOEDMszxPTdUFtkMfT0+KL3EsI5dvcdyNNGvOXZhRypMFTQkGzEXQg/Nd HKa/KnOUXlAIz0VrRDL2YqpCR94J81ih39d2v0OavBkWGqRXN9TWyn58MGeNGW1igrfU IkptOoY6BEtpWMpLYAbeXESGhrx8mBn6cL+q5V45Y8LCCyEawpTlu2EvifPnB4m/z79U sqNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ACRN9G6b3hx5K25Mo5KKk6cZr1wXntiLkWqFcSFfjCE=; b=W56GDVpsZe36DNw27PpguhTp65khtOZcfuVJSKw/L/lfWhR/jJ0KdE/oTdbim6QePd wMic7CiQuJkB5MrqBv9+jsa+j845s2w8T72NFHSvJarP9bvnU6Zvk3N0cJEX+iCVUi9J H22lW2RzazvzIFqyP4Xb/Foow9doLNfug0unwBZ3F0JNmjdlwIVXiWEZ3kW98qIBDARa I8ctqUWLnBB1YitPDD71u/GhpIJacAuwZvyiaCVzLdf6oYwyq0BG4FR1gK/0GtKZxmP/ UVXZWABqMyyskIXuoNcT5afyiIK0pkCvmVbmGCg5Nmm1c+/XsbI5VXunIyVJwSZAe8qX aS2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531x6uamiJyXRDh5RAndlXO9fmKrDTD1X34iY/N/eZ0de4GdGZJF eqcKaK5A+ZIfZZ1l4SU4hR5fLsXZ0Z2dQOqZu/+9AZbdwFs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBBbq31mKXMW3+mAdmwsCnStExoJ9qismrjP5geFpy2tAMDM9VQNEhShPBCFOSH1KtaE7UtaQiDcH+HgFtcK4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a859:: with SMTP id dx25mr14929582ejb.459.1602259707931; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 09:08:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Wes Hardaker Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:07:51 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sandy Ginoza Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Alice Russo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bac55405b13f283d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 16:08:31 -0000 --000000000000bac55405b13f283d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > This information is provided simply to help the discussion along. > Sandy, Thank you for bringing some concrete items to the table to potentially use as examples for framing discussions. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI --000000000000bac55405b13f283d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


This information is provided simply to help the discussion along.=C2=A0=C2= =A0

Sandy,

Tha= nk you for bringing some concrete items to the table to=C2=A0potentially us= e as examples for framing discussions.

--
Wes Hardaker
U= SC/ISI
--000000000000bac55405b13f283d-- From nobody Fri Oct 9 12:54:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068DD3A151D for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a_Z6g767KOBo for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3720E3A151C for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kQyTV-000Jcv-JN; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:54:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:54:39 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Sandy Ginoza cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Alice Russo Message-ID: <9F3325F3480DE4BCB34CD1AE@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:54:57 -0000 Sandy, I (at least) found this very helpful, not only for the information and context but because you managed to present it with none of the emotion that seems to overtake many of the rest of us when discussing the issues and roles. I hope everyone on the list reads your note and pays careful attention. thanks and best regards, john --On Thursday, October 8, 2020 12:37 -0700 Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Greetings all, > > We've been invited by the IETF Executive Director and the > Program Chairs to share some thoughts to help with the > community discussion underway. > > The RPC read the proposals and has somewhat kept up with the > discussion taking place on the list. While being sensitive to > the fact that we are a vendor, we have a few thoughts from the > RPC perspective that we hope will be helpful as discussion > about v3 of the RFC Editor model continues. > > Over the past 10 years, AMS has been part of implementing RFC > Editor models v1 and v2. During this time, the RPC has found > it helpful to have someone engaged in the activities below (in > no particular order), which allowed the RPC to focus on > document production and process, and implementation of new > developments. Note: we use "someone" because that is > how the model was structured. > > a) evolve the series, considering community goals, series > continuity, and best practices for publication and archiving > (for example, the digital preservation considerations > documented in RFC 8153) > > b) when the strategic goals influence RPC priorities, weigh > tradeoffs and explain the tradeoffs to the community; > determine whether to implement changes based on tradeoffs and > feedback received (for example, DOIs where the tradeoff was > cost, both for the DOIs and contracted programming for > automated uploads, and programming effort by the RPC to hold > and display the data in various places) > > c) monitor and engage in various community lists; outreach as > needed to address concerns, and consider suggestions for > further development > > d) discern which suggestions are worth investigating further > and implementing > > e) update the Style Guide based on best common practice and > input from the community and RPC > > f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict > > g) dive into RPC operations as needed, for example: > - mediate author/RPC disputes (e.g., some authors object to > the adopted Style Guide when applied to their documents or the > Style Guide doesn't address their issue; the RPC can > usually, but not always, work through discrepancies with the > authors) > > - provide input regarding best practices for archiving, > display, etc. (fyi: there was a lot of discussion with the > then-RSE about items like this in preparation for v3 > transition) > > h) make a decision or call consensus in a timely manner to > keep things moving > > > Here are a few specific community suggestions we are aware of > that may benefit from SME guidance: > > - revamp of the AUTH48 process > - addition of ePub as a publication format > - a process by which bis documents can be turned around more > quickly - revamp of the errata system > - Style Guide updates > - v3 XML formatting guidance > > This information is provided simply to help the discussion > along. > > Thank you, > > Sandy Ginoza, Director > RFC Production Center > Association Management Solutions, LLC > 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538 > Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000 From nobody Fri Oct 9 20:38:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A983A0112 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t3NG1iZdlQPD for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23AD43A00E5 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id bb1so5430509plb.2 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 20:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9l1PZoBN361ZTxHynTz4bFPoRF+m1gAaf6NeT1xCac=; b=Ag48Q//5sTuo4HPKoUIkA+Vo1sN0nBkzV2TuyxVA+cE6jcCsEatKudlSi+UMYK3gNu 87ylIxAhZmuA5/lg7yTtAxLIriKtC78DUoKJb526/GQsTtC4OITJaAz99XVXz05LyALx L+aCM3OSAG9k6lIhGyO9s7npy55spfjiq3JTlHlrVr+pASc75jAUHzF/8Kwr49JK2VsB 1ps4/3pyPcnJt/iWlbkrYfw/fxyPFMvoRZ4xzS0GNe1kO/Gpty1dF8iQtb2sFx3IUVwX IwX9LthPWs56z2MHLcY51bOxH1/pEfixC+4dSuEOtPvuJGudqgZFAa23NMFvjros6AnI cmXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9l1PZoBN361ZTxHynTz4bFPoRF+m1gAaf6NeT1xCac=; b=h8CYG+DB+tqnNNlaSvplWgoZskoW+vKP5cGXd3A9jqO2Je61QOfuy9HBZrtujmOl87 pdJ4YjpFBbKF7Li5CoSd92Rf399+fhH4ZK3r1FmZ3CpLyVwP8iWxvvoL5lWSMRa/hBqD pUJKcMEluROF/AoVZFIJ0Ij4Vg/um7eQ3kHidGhxagHrft1LqgIKvgL4NqbmnXtx4viI A/3in+e5wmOeeRVkot1DdKznDoTtLeCiYT4zAfa9ilDhhWreAYBGiPdd8+1l+P3FD3bJ twvIR8n9C1wliXBTkWhghEJHAUo1ziLyblTAqpcqp3B3Br2ptxCgXNOUcR6wq5308tPF 9+Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304/jFEdHS8jLLDd4NJ6JS37JuYsNaNmV0A3RosA2prYvv+VoWP Nm/5qkLuiukLWrA/mLyU9/Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwg/iToUoE8X/zbqj00rFiJrpnPiYeowOWz34OTaO0E3BpOvTjS/VjShRs0Bnifzls/t5RQHg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8698:b029:d3:b362:7342 with SMTP id g24-20020a1709028698b02900d3b3627342mr14738528plo.50.1602301085530; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 20:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm12604688pfj.84.2020.10.09.20.38.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Oct 2020 20:38:04 -0700 (PDT) To: Sandy Ginoza , rfced-future@iab.org Cc: Alice Russo References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 16:38:01 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 03:38:07 -0000 Thanks, Sandy and Alice, very useful. May I ask a clarifying question?=20 > f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict=20 Can you give some indication (obviously anonymized) about the sort of=20 conflict that has arisen in the last few years, beyond "author/RPC disputes"? Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Oct-20 08:37, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Greetings all, >=20 > We=E2=80=99ve been invited by the IETF Executive Director and the Progr= am Chairs to share some thoughts to help with the community discussion un= derway. =20 >=20 > The RPC read the proposals and has somewhat kept up with the discussion= taking place on the list. While being sensitive to the fact that we are= a vendor, we have a few thoughts from the RPC perspective that we hope w= ill be helpful as discussion about v3 of the RFC Editor model continues. = =20 >=20 > Over the past 10 years, AMS has been part of implementing RFC Editor mo= dels v1 and v2. During this time, the RPC has found it helpful to have s= omeone engaged in the activities below (in no particular order), which al= lowed the RPC to focus on document production and process, and implementa= tion of new developments. =20 > Note: we use =E2=80=9Csomeone=E2=80=9D because that is how the model wa= s structured. =20 >=20 > a) evolve the series, considering community goals, series continuity, a= nd best practices for publication and archiving (for example, the digital= preservation considerations documented in RFC 8153) >=20 > b) when the strategic goals influence RPC priorities, weigh tradeoffs a= nd explain the tradeoffs to the community; determine whether to implement= changes based on tradeoffs and feedback received (for example, DOIs wher= e the tradeoff was cost, both for the DOIs and contracted programming for= automated uploads, and programming effort by the RPC to hold and display= the data in various places) >=20 > c) monitor and engage in various community lists; outreach as needed to= address concerns, and consider suggestions for further development >=20 > d) discern which suggestions are worth investigating further and implem= enting >=20 > e) update the Style Guide based on best common practice and input from = the community and RPC >=20 > f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict=20 >=20 > g) dive into RPC operations as needed, for example: > - mediate author/RPC disputes (e.g., some authors object to the adopt= ed Style Guide when applied to their documents or the Style Guide doesn=E2= =80=99t address their issue; the RPC can usually, but not always, work th= rough discrepancies with the authors) >=20 > - provide input regarding best practices for archiving, display, etc.= (fyi: there was a lot of discussion with the then-RSE about items like t= his in preparation for v3 transition) >=20 > h) make a decision or call consensus in a timely manner to keep things = moving >=20 >=20 > Here are a few specific community suggestions we are aware of that may = benefit from SME guidance:=20 >=20 > - revamp of the AUTH48 process > - addition of ePub as a publication format=20 > - a process by which bis documents can be turned around more quickly=20 > - revamp of the errata system=20 > - Style Guide updates > - v3 XML formatting guidance=20 >=20 > This information is provided simply to help the discussion along. =20 >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Sandy Ginoza, Director > RFC Production Center > Association Management Solutions, LLC > 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538 > Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000 >=20 From nobody Sun Oct 11 14:35:47 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB8C3A08FF for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ir8KArE6; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=FEQXtUNx Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70WJD69K1YzK for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09673A08FA for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 51267 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2020 21:35:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=c840.5f837aad.k2010; bh=hibMq41nhhL1qdbLqaehHGU1E3P77eimiYuohonNkw0=; b=ir8KArE6OHIvBsMQC2Wdz0AngzCA+LXRMfs2aYJvHUTyOm4N5PJR8MAWDd0HS5YwCSBkqpFm9RKQgIP40wQIe2W0oywbVr5KDGbT4EYCn5Q4Q+UxQHDXDvVsIlEn2GKDPHQtDb/7VTVp2lXtLvyiW85rBPNqMtCBrb4SpAmHfeWmpPiUsDGxlmQzlk5WMh+DouD8rqFH6llYUHmT0SHJ6ddtBYiRnKflYdVhavfVs9joLn2zoDnPveW2XeqhQ22766aDbsixfQrz8nM//XUgfxdApEpkLaNf4Cf9W1DwMMdPCbI8ZR2gUhT+Olo5vX6fEHfjvSIpaJTXz0xzm8egPg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=c840.5f837aad.k2010; bh=hibMq41nhhL1qdbLqaehHGU1E3P77eimiYuohonNkw0=; b=FEQXtUNxlWsaZ0TtD3ck0A6VYR2sjKjqDrfiOk6QaFGonWuIJlprssz2Rz3pj3aSpvzizSc+IYv9P0CP5ScKvd289W5aWElJfbibHL5w2tJrD90Pi6/35I2TW7ZEUcYLv9w3Re908QBccTI17jp8QJgoWk6gBaPFGjN57iHamt0SPyyvegQcKFwL5rI9S2F/d0jXPar2LBjQfHNrt6vrDHEkSkfqZNUTi3TbB7oXPP6E+DvkVV3ogCv8aZxKCQqIopL9LCR07YFcrf5KQzOgppZk39j2p40qVe7FOU6pQLjPmy4/lZrNruq/l618mfBV90GjDzKCO3Fwxy694zFzHA== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 11 Oct 2020 21:35:41 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 04B3A2346A8D; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 17:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: 11 Oct 2020 17:35:40 -0400 Message-Id: <20201011213541.04B3A2346A8D@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:35:46 -0000 In article you write: >Thanks, Sandy and Alice, very useful. May I ask a clarifying question? > >> f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict > >Can you give some indication (obviously anonymized) about the sort of >conflict that has arisen in the last few years, beyond "author/RPC >disputes"? In recent months the only dispute I can recall was with an author who was outraged that the text version of his RFC doesn't have page numbers, and was not impressed when I pointed out that was the outcome of a very long process memorialized in RFC 7994. Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it was worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Sun Oct 11 16:12:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27873A09BB for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:12:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=uhONfPX8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=cTKDfxzz Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KXxEkAxGJuF8 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913F03A09B5 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4348D632 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:12:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:12:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=gSoq25/m0JHpEVqjbg4CKFtImti9Uub hYWJCIV6zXOw=; b=uhONfPX8O3y2si7bUe3QICuMAEHk19nZ0vcUwUcs+WYnaa9 GX169XtJ6eL46sPzYxvXFUHhqfLlSu8JnnNjkeLxRIr1Fd71lQJZzWx0B7+39ltd GwIQVQuiBmv7ir+Olb2E9VXQzkKCY6WuMyR5QyX12EbO5LZc06OfiBEgRLLC8Wxr /9GJXLT7MdcJtD4wNPlyjS5dkciQWsc4hOHmF7+NmvfWuOb/zop2cYf/BYZfPvDu UY9pKn0ceR18yXma9WjyW9zX3qomGCvYQo9Wy6pEcYG735aSLLiq3GP8Cp1DqILK yLOzWrZIj5ZfX4qUnStqesqxvduf+V5zzwTlg7g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gSoq25 /m0JHpEVqjbg4CKFtImti9UubhYWJCIV6zXOw=; b=cTKDfxzziIiEDcIsGTJBla oyaWL9L+LH/GnoS9A9X25UyMn4MY+noV4ueoSWtgpETg4+UUqo75Z6BNoKyYG8VK ePJu9PbtL3zwY2+V71c4NEeN6y1zSZ11HbrEnPpaFbMn5OKd0+e1rtnuGX0XkNVN k127iEmRi2px4bFOjvhyJZ+ezao2jjXDkUwUYRTQTRCX8wa6K0QHFwDaFM6ho6kQ mPk9AS2rvTqi9CM5Bc46EibNVgujotS9XMTt6upMi7CbPsB3U7E0hlUANwPr5pKB 9JQspxABUxzaIpFju4uBZCq/uzNbNOdAmAPKBFo68MMrZHjZi7VG82ZmLxBRJmzA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheeigddvtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeetueeikedtkeelfeekve fhkeffvedvvefgkefgleeugfdvjeejgeffieegtdejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 829EF20212; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:12:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20201011213541.04B3A2346A8D@ary.qy> References: <20201011213541.04B3A2346A8D@ary.qy> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:11:44 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:12:08 -0000 On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 08:35, John Levine wrote: > Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it was > worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that > improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. I assume that this is no longer a serious concern, as the output formats can be updated after the new version is released, right? From nobody Sun Oct 11 16:17:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744CC3A09BA for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.112 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GVcxeUx1aakq for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1E63A09B5 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse223.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.223] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx166.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRkak-000Ilv-Bq for rfced-future@iab.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 01:17:27 +0200 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C8d4h1R3qz2WLs for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.18] (helo=xmail08.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRkai-0007Xg-2f for rfced-future@iab.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:24 -0700 Received: (qmail 11045 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2020 23:24:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.139]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail08.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 11 Oct 2020 23:24:38 -0000 To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <20201011213541.04B3A2346A8D@ary.qy> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: <444bca49-38bc-5370-ed4e-a8a8dacb21cf@huitema.net> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:17:23 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.223 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.223/32 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.223/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.12) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0Z1apovzGPsYhEeBL1aoZmqpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhV3ZDjQ5Y2I4Cs aF+L87tV40TNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4jjlAgfZ2fAZmyOzstf8rG+QVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuEzBCgqe539x2oAbbqp81Hae42Vki7412dpbhrD2d47zbC3VvU djSCswikK/licfX+oIF6uBSWByrPG2Vxuo/vVPllrFEbCkMryfcYCsgMUJObfBQoU3roWy2GH1DY sAiH3gousbgNfxi2R3uFLvZP/HBXvrLBlKCVRjjdPbjQ4HnBNho1Lszw5OO01yYoll8q2UgzFF+j HNSbIoW1Q++Wvj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFg3eKzPG9E5MikC2dVXWcpK172i/E5sOgbaCtBiSIx 1XwCY8vmv+JqOVJamBHfOGVwjn7Xut/lXagsodd5qqODTFiwcpU4fyz75jxpU98RPGiH1Wgh6RAe nBR+licROGZNFSBymhtbd6ygEffuU1+3Lf6cmU/99wDQedNhMKpgrdiG9eo7Dfj4rahJXrZkbYTQ H50sZPeDQaETTMuyQC0ZCSdRWDkDVbAHLPZcwageP3uXCC1A5Cukky0WFo38JXT3Y80OmAux3oN1 3+ztUzneYEplsL+5XFssitmc7PWS8b83o7TP54FLJfg9sR3SxHIlskjHLzc+VgGEhwyjgANqfe+I GUjB9GGQuUyyonMs1IW+axx2DzNv8BNlsyaVn+WWteT6bOYuWbf9uz8Z3s3N3UVkhX78ZcdZtWJt ri4lXS4599fEDT1GENo62d+DqD+gavEa4Cf1ILpAKBLSDHQENgjpXL2y/ONOC04/YEfTu1ss+n2f fnQxt6aJ7klZab8CvOT2YjlrAxveXsTwUzCTkiX4qyX2d5a1xbDejUjyqRVeiJQ5XjnH4gzAuCMQ 8aUxL7hrJSk60SF3F6RYOYr2 X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:17:31 -0000 On 10/11/2020 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 08:35, John Levine wrote: >> Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it was >> worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that >> improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. > I assume that this is no longer a serious concern, as the output formats can be updated after the new version is released, right? Did this group not decide a while back that we were not going to open that particular kind of worms, the reference text for RFCs? That's definitely an issue for who will be in charge next, but we don't need to solve that *here*. -- Christian Huitema From nobody Sun Oct 11 18:45:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12A33A0141 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 18:45:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=B5zMrJx2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=cLdWjFgn Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Ud28D4p48lQ for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142D23A0365 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8CB367 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:45:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=+IIlKsQd57IkDoGqzJ2FhwTerjqpbUg hNIE8Ze51620=; b=B5zMrJx2yhV0VdUAAqQBDV9DUAiJzZ01wV2fW0x5oz3f/93 D4nC+NvW7fn/WDHS4fVB+WEduqYzgaMDnaAc18+lHaChzCfKiCyHmud0Wwm+jY76 me1Ll/zoF3+aTqrWDewO47rUzGxLcWgDq1byNNWZCQ9BoGbcaKWC0yxuAzxVF2G+ cBGZ5BA4U/9eFGj38+NIhQkNqjwxNpolwCTANnkvQTYPG8LVV42q2RxaiXMjGtL/ D6ZXYdNkUIBC1d3Wb9+lDq7V8HTEEP0ho59bFP6ACY0goSii8ttXsbmmXK1MHveK dEne0O1BLmoZxHNY549ERr+GqmAghIpGzx7fpsQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=+IIlKs Qd57IkDoGqzJ2FhwTerjqpbUghNIE8Ze51620=; b=cLdWjFgnaBnGx8eLxq7f+O IPzZ4fdJMZ7b0S3msp1GKFAk54wDDEYKVc1eTQhuL2dZ+2OH3DRDUiIg6K8Bw/lB hmFYujv0XW0Y8jP8R1HDvV4FxT9OtEMuCnkarn/akMnYl7pp/LaPjIVjbgFFwbUw 3TnbRVjLkVYjFsaw3Ls+euq87IKp6q1U3pAx+6HzAIB9Hdzi6fBHIUomX094KyQL XcyalaLdAn7679QEITih9leRLMuH8g5eKbMc0DYeQ+Vyw8NqftAr+Qnc1Vbajy3z J9mX5wA47dv7VNyu10Mhq5R6zYHQXkhQ6cDG7zvm18VOdTatpf2In9XH/xvEMZtg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheeigdehtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeetueeikedtkeelfeekve fhkeffvedvvefgkefgleeugfdvjeejgeffieegtdejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5C58120212; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:45:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:45:17 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 01:45:56 -0000 On Thu, Oct 1, 2020, at 03:40, Brian Rosen wrote: > Is there a figurehead/thought leader, regardless of what the position > is called, how they are selected, who they report to, and what duties > they have? You did ask for a yes/no answer, so I'm going to put my vote for "no". Certainly not in the sense of "figurehead", and I think that Adam's non-response matches fairly closely with how I am thinking about the "thought leader" concept. Some additional nuance might help though. In the discussion it has been fairly clear that there is a need for some sort of management position. I would put most of what Sandy listed into this category. What is somewhat unique in the prior arrangement here is the extent to which the "product" provided was tightly negotiated. The RPC has apparently never had any "product management" function responsible for ensuring that their "product" is responsive to the needs of their client. The client in this case is the community of people who produce and consume RFCs. That the RSE has been responsible for this product management function is very clear from Sandy's list. I guess that part of what I proposed is a move to a model where the RPC (or whatever it is called) moves to taking on more of that responsibility, at least as it pertains to those decisions that need to be made for operational reasons. That might involve less of the RPC being told what to do in concrete terms. I'm guessing here because much of the client-supplier engagement happens largely out of sight (I only get glimpses at AUTH48, and a filtered view through my stint on RSOC). That process thus far appears to involve some variation on a process where a problem is identified after which the RSE works with those involved and makes a decision. A lot of the things subject to that process aren't high impact, but benefit from having the RSE, as a representative of the client, make a decision. I'm tempted to say "bike shed colours", but it's almost never that far from consequential. Up until now the community (in the broad sense) have delegated (and paid) the RSE to represent their/our interests as a "client". On the full spectrum of issues, from the details of execution to setting long-term strategic direction. That involves a lot of trust. I couldn't find anywhere that documents the set of principles that guide the decision-making of the RSE. There's a lot in what is implied by the documented record, or what can be conveyed via oral history, and a few RFCs. But not a lot of that recently. The principles documented in RFC 3 clearly don't match contemporary use. What I proposed was not that our community design a system that results in a void, but instead to concentrate on building those principles. Concrete decisions can be judged - or iterated upon - based on those principles. I don't think that we necessarily need a specific person (in a paid position or otherwise) to guide that process, at least not on an ongoing basis, but we might allow those principles to be subjected to discussion and documentation. I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given authority to dominate discussions in this area. Someone who is paid to drive will drive. This is why the "advisor" function is vastly preferable to me. From nobody Sun Oct 11 19:24:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A8D3A0846 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:23:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.851 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=pbXCVtY9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KV8Alo8u Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dUKV-sVcLH4A for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6C43A082C for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 98181 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2020 02:23:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=17f83.5f83be38.k2010; bh=7y0haNY4M99z8+jAXJ0qGgBVYxeq6RA+LhNVPspuaN8=; b=pbXCVtY9m5kSKgZyfukaljYfW/HyJJzLHl1yWn/s32ZZF4UaxQBHsg8arZBfAVnZUkmztNmRwmccXnIQE5O5ECfCh40rRBaawR9mzyPtznrBF6AaZMMv26uB9WFRBVwuGyWKuWEdWJpe5bFZR3DTbfZUUtzp+5Oh8IK5x7gGQDhbzSSkmyhwfLzflYJ/vYiH1GPaGThsaTkqSAUFSfqgdhCiFiEmqor9sgJSSPzeue52OhMnxtm4F0XvFlHLE2SCUMU1g8ymDCJG+G0GVJzKqvljVZcjCivLgTWwsYZhQYjHP51+evo57biIMF8TDXOzWPW8ZbZwaqquib/eOv+N6w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=17f83.5f83be38.k2010; bh=7y0haNY4M99z8+jAXJ0qGgBVYxeq6RA+LhNVPspuaN8=; b=KV8Alo8uEZqztf0/k+BlFg3VBogGlNmLvFZZrAhTQgXhSBTPI6x0UlKIfDQFXq9WIYrSHTmCSlsR0/qdr18r8TskESllzWa+TyUpaHvlDthBtiwYPa414uPSzcVRSzq9PDWCcyphugF7MZ0rBybFUY331deV98Dg5s2cwtxcFMwB1phr7T8fsBldg/wDay2TOJtaQIk8LtuVN1rTh3R2hDpKS1pxdhKCeX+xGkjWdx2OFOZ+mC2X8eUL0cruBWmcnPGuYV+Hl0HbXbkFjDlSnILJ/ORgj4OsHUUlSmd5pme+XrTybDpyorUMDUqNuSFDArEJK8VLj/6bT4Tca2qevg== Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 12 Oct 2020 02:23:52 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 77EDD2349072; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 22:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: 11 Oct 2020 22:23:50 -0400 Message-Id: <20201012022351.77EDD2349072@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: rfced-future@iab.org Cc: huitema@huitema.net In-Reply-To: <444bca49-38bc-5370-ed4e-a8a8dacb21cf@huitema.net> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 02:23:59 -0000 In article <444bca49-38bc-5370-ed4e-a8a8dacb21cf@huitema.net> you write: > >On 10/11/2020 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 08:35, John Levine wrote: >>> Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it was >>> worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that >>> improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. >> I assume that this is no longer a serious concern, as the output formats can be updated after the new version is released, right? Sort of. The output files need to be good enough to be usable, but not ideal perfectly typeset. With the current tool design, the PDFs will never look fabulous because we don't have enough control over the output formatting. >Did this group not decide a while back that we were not going to open >that particular kind of worms, the reference text for RFCs? The rendered formats are not canonical, but we seem to have a wide variety of opinions about what "doesn't change" means. From nobody Mon Oct 12 00:26:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8493A12E5 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:26:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QTxnYwlNUYp6 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB40F3A12E1 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:26:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1588; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602487596; x=1603697196; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=F3iJR9elpB6FVTemuSIlQeepFKUD1/s3hAITEk4pMJA=; b=Y7qpHjkdcZjgfDa/HKE0Io0LFTup6DXbcI1WGzqcJ2f9im7FGVSB5BBe FOMGhOXmIRRw9nOzu3uqVZsIKDUekrDnLcPL9VTa/FTyaMBWOxmF/050y jtRF0gPF2SmtWwUKO10louw36s5K8t0HE0KRNGWiQTh4SOWQBoxAd0/El M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CHDAAMBIRf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU8CgihwVQEgEiyNP4dxJpoqgXwLAQEBDQEBGAsMBAEBhEo?= =?us-ascii?q?CghQmOwMNAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVyAQEBAQIBAQE4NAsFCwsYLic?= =?us-ascii?q?wBhODJgGCXCAPphV0gTSFVIRiBoE4AY1QggCBOAwQgh8uPoJcAYFgg0qCLQS?= =?us-ascii?q?3YIJygxWXVAMfoTqvZ4NgAgQGBQIVgX4DDYFXMxoIGxU7KgGCPj4SGQ2OKxe?= =?us-ascii?q?IYoVEPwMwNwIGCgEBAwmOSAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,366,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30279362" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Oct 2020 07:26:32 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-102-29.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-102-29.cisco.com [10.61.102.29]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09C7QWkR029534 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:26:32 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: <20201012022351.77EDD2349072@ary.qy> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:26:31 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, huitema@huitema.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <30E3DD05-8E54-4374-A314-B3F6229C2D8F@cisco.com> References: <20201012022351.77EDD2349072@ary.qy> To: John Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.102.29, dhcp-10-61-102-29.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:26:39 -0000 We should be careful not to get into the weeds. The value of the RPC = contribution from Sandy is to give us a feel for what we might call upon = this person to do. When thinking about this, one can consider the = totality of that list or individual items. The key question really is- = who does that work, if anyone? Eliot > On 12 Oct 2020, at 04:23, John Levine wrote: >=20 > In article <444bca49-38bc-5370-ed4e-a8a8dacb21cf@huitema.net> you = write: >>=20 >> On 10/11/2020 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 08:35, John Levine wrote: >>>> Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it = was >>>> worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that >>>> improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. >>> I assume that this is no longer a serious concern, as the output = formats can be updated after the new version is released, right? >=20 > Sort of. The output files need to be good enough to be usable, but not > ideal perfectly typeset. With the current tool design, the PDFs will > never look fabulous because we don't have enough control over the > output formatting. >=20 >> Did this group not decide a while back that we were not going to open >> that particular kind of worms, the reference text for RFCs? >=20 > The rendered formats are not canonical, but we seem to have a wide > variety of opinions about what "doesn't change" means. >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Mon Oct 12 07:16:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69893A1508 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:16:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sFVkDfZsKePg for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 093F33A1505 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:16:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4844; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602512214; x=1603721814; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=FsQOlJog0zSuXa6TE2xK8CvFeW8qiXYuTHjwFmC+10k=; b=BcY7er9tEGFDqT1IUJUoV8npDjwxiUngGeb2GPUZn398W0lP48XP9KNX URUveqYiE/rB2mk1wQex7SKZgVrBrMSKlTXpNq0XXdCLuvB5ajQ3J1Mvw VcAOOuoNTe9S/p8MgnBUrl+xQqmIcnxzi4NAWZoP5IhEJwSFRouVJINcZ E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AjAwAtZYRf/xbLJq1gHgEBCxIMggQ?= =?us-ascii?q?Lg28BIBKEaYkCiBiUDIYdgX0LAQEBDQEBLwQBAYRKAoIXJjQJDgIDAQELAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVzAQQBI1YQCwQKNAICVwYngxKCXSCmVnaBMoVUhGqBOI1?= =?us-ascii?q?RggCBOByCTT6HVDOCLQS3YIJygxWXVAMfkjaPBK9ng2ACBAYFAhWBVDqBVzM?= =?us-ascii?q?aCBsVOyoBgj89EhkNjisXjiY/A2cCBgEJAQEDCY5IAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,366,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30229598" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Oct 2020 14:16:46 +0000 Received: from [10.61.174.123] ([10.61.174.123]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09CEGjDM003459 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:16:46 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_93D163CD-A897-4D0A-B953-FCFC263768EE" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:16:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Martin Thomson References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.174.123, [10.61.174.123] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:16:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_93D163CD-A897-4D0A-B953-FCFC263768EE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Martin, Thanks for this detailed message. Just for clarification... >=20 > That the RSE has been responsible for this product management function = is very clear from Sandy's list. I guess that part of what I proposed = is a move to a model where the RPC (or whatever it is called) moves to = taking on more of that responsibility, at least as it pertains to those = decisions that need to be made for operational reasons. Are you suggesting that the RPC take on the entirety of the list or a = part of the list, and if the latter, which part, and should there be = some flexibility about that line time, and if so, how? [=E2=80=A6] >=20 > What I proposed was not that our community design a system that = results in a void, but instead to concentrate on building those = principles. Concrete decisions can be judged - or iterated upon - based = on those principles. I don't think that we necessarily need a specific = person (in a paid position or otherwise) to guide that process, at least = not on an ongoing basis, but we might allow those principles to be = subjected to discussion and documentation. >=20 > I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given = authority to dominate discussions in this area. Someone who is paid to = drive will drive. This is why the "advisor" function is vastly = preferable to me. I think I heard three different roles from you: Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to the RPC = in cases of dispute. Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical = requirements. =20 Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community when = addressing strategic requirements. Is that about right? Eliot= --Apple-Mail=_93D163CD-A897-4D0A-B953-FCFC263768EE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Martin,

Thanks for = this detailed message.  Just for clarification...


That the RSE has been responsible for this = product management function is very clear from Sandy's list.  I = guess that part of what I proposed is a move to a model where the RPC = (or whatever it is called) moves to taking on more of that = responsibility, at least as it pertains to those decisions that need to = be made for operational reasons.

Are = you suggesting that the RPC take on the entirety of the list or a part = of the list, and if the latter, which part, and should there be some = flexibility about that line time, and if so, how?

[=E2=80=A6]

What I = proposed was not that our community design a system that results in a = void, but instead to concentrate on building those principles. =  Concrete decisions can be judged - or iterated upon - based on = those principles.  I don't think that we necessarily need a = specific person (in a paid position or otherwise) to guide that process, = at least not on an ongoing basis, but we might allow those principles to = be subjected to discussion and documentation.

I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is = given authority to dominate discussions in this area.  Someone who = is paid to drive will drive.  This is why the "advisor" function is = vastly preferable to me.

I think I heard three different roles from you:

  • Client representative: The person = to represent "the client" to the RPC in cases of dispute.
  • Product manager: A person or group of people to manage = tactical requirements.  
  • Strategic Advisor: A = person who is an advisor to the community when addressing strategic = requirements.

Is that about right?

Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_93D163CD-A897-4D0A-B953-FCFC263768EE-- From nobody Mon Oct 12 07:38:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA843A1598 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:38:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=eNyLb8As; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Py04WTSW Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1EdE77rlqvC for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8253A156C for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 42830 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2020 14:38:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=a74c.5f846a4b.k2010; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=bDFMhKc2YboJiXmC1oPqkYNjaQ9kpxaFZMCdRa6XjX8=; b=eNyLb8AsDRlRoigaL4eBiYraH75TG9VC4gUelq7NdLv5rpf3+/7LkOai7f8ff1VkiV9FZhRdnte2sMM7+ylfpp/6PK3Be7ylv4hvF0OwLwCRLXKmmdApm3GYDy01/jV9IN7J2cfAHb9GvBGRYY2ONbb7v2k1HSSIPr6ZE7275sQMtJc5ls/D3j8GNDUvoB7kSurLgcrhU/RUFOIhtk9gl793AZUy/uVI0Q29N1/iHyNPakbyHEj+4TY8DPxfv6QizH6UTKrzPGdxx9N54lZFy59jKJf5JS0hte6AwGYftcbAHaipHb5anuHxuTsieduq0HHTUgmB3iP+adVY0VacIA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=a74c.5f846a4b.k2010; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=bDFMhKc2YboJiXmC1oPqkYNjaQ9kpxaFZMCdRa6XjX8=; b=Py04WTSWhHTWstmxpwj3ePIZaJIouaHeHtm8Kndj4I7Kxk5v6xy+SCwb6RU0ulTUW3IU5Q96GU1dD57tb/e+QHT19jYJWgyoKTGmadBExh331/d05nXivA3fJ1mHjo+DkbDmLCsARuhufdlCTQNxF3Ay5+anLSyeim5xvYXezJJIjGlGRXovdP2TlRMXOuL9B+US+JIAO7Z7t0cs8QGB1Nu35OYphYa2qP8R4LnPwecMdf7RyYamULeYJa9cog32kxGSz84ALnou/Ha2T+2dBjKDGMZNZmXw4aY5BWTTcB9K6X6B+k0t1tOXP3ZY9t8JDfrBByU3xAG6mg72iEJV0A== Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 12 Oct 2020 14:38:02 -0000 Date: 12 Oct 2020 10:38:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Eliot Lear" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <30E3DD05-8E54-4374-A314-B3F6229C2D8F@cisco.com> References: <20201012022351.77EDD2349072@ary.qy> <30E3DD05-8E54-4374-A314-B3F6229C2D8F@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:38:14 -0000 > We should be careful not to get into the weeds. The value of the RPC contribution from Sandy is to give us a feel for what we might call upon this person to do. When thinking about this, one can consider the totality of that list or individual items. The key question really is- who does that work, if anyone? Totally agree. On the other hand, who would decide whether RFCs are always immutable might be a good straw man for the various governance proposals. Not what the answer is, but how we would get to whatever the answer turned out to be. R's, John >> In article <444bca49-38bc-5370-ed4e-a8a8dacb21cf@huitema.net> you write: >>> >>> On 10/11/2020 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, at 08:35, John Levine wrote: >>>>> Other than that it's been small judgement calls about whether it was >>>>> worth holding up publication to wait for an xml2rfc version that >>>>> improved the formatting or it was good enough as is. >>>> I assume that this is no longer a serious concern, as the output formats can be updated after the new version is released, right? >> >> Sort of. The output files need to be good enough to be usable, but not >> ideal perfectly typeset. With the current tool design, the PDFs will >> never look fabulous because we don't have enough control over the >> output formatting. >> >>> Did this group not decide a while back that we were not going to open >>> that particular kind of worms, the reference text for RFCs? >> >> The rendered formats are not canonical, but we seem to have a wide >> variety of opinions about what "doesn't change" means. From nobody Mon Oct 12 13:03:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DFB3A08AB for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4_WRTBJecjoR for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D06E3A02DC for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id w21so14580068pfc.7 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=269HBVjRx/N+sn9TN/xZ9QVfEKhsHWr2C26asq/Hbp0=; b=GGRMBIEV5TU/Pux1hBRZDwsXF7C3glOyYrKB7EJR05hugU8m98kqC08z04eLBi3XGc t5w/2HwPm7JYI8nERHIUk7EyX6nPbEKZtZ3oWr/7XBHF2yPmyfrK94cxNRkEXXlJrdq8 /9E+8ZA3akMpCDDtErIQZ2qpJms2tL+/9N4BQbyRfESSfElPmTWavB4O+zsTOtOhOxiW Yu9vRYT0tgRVNPuKVxO3p4It2qVJUMvow6zvhVuNsAPVf1jFmuQKP1fjUmie1w9JPA7k nV6Xin6miMfG/k86NXTkywgaNu2MpObt+M88T6tssws3494adhr6WMOy1Ab9CGwAdQm3 vNJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=269HBVjRx/N+sn9TN/xZ9QVfEKhsHWr2C26asq/Hbp0=; b=XMcZ2n34CzV+vp/tYNl1CzF7zzqvyPZnGZsxzIN1WqGFp2WmjUcBETj5srGy2x6o6T NkYhngVNNfvdJqtkbIFXee3IzHcpGjWIw7hE/4fne3+TJlGlOBqIiPOO+cc4o0DpQg0i 67Xa58eEzcsQm60W+BrGoVdsxRjV/2CXttznKifS1xQerRBfLQjiBc7GAxTwf8rPfncb r9t9cZe1/8PEtkbv4uSDnSD9B7Ikk1ZExokfGO/RT4OZndKQgAeGa5T/oYlJerWgp1k7 X/jIC2DUaUYwJvnj4tEuBqUnunXKBqzk1qHxAUN3+WSF5ZU6IKlMwyKP8tHmMTceGHJ0 Vffw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/+EHvWG5YcSM/9bYgiXQZBWM6mi4dXn0jkwo2tp+56Lwo3rud Q5JcP1bbRG5PA50iutgS7KOTGMxoOFlp+w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxY/EA7x4/5fKzzBZOXcTKIbpgTJ+6FR0DM/T/uSDgmlZZeDgl+UPAvG1XXh8Ksd0Jx9JWuqw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6288:: with SMTP id d8mr4115796pjj.210.1602533004259; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q5sm9002708pjg.0.2020.10.12.13.03.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:03:23 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 09:03:20 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:03:27 -0000 On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: =2E.. >> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given auth= ority to dominate discussions in this area. =C2=A0Someone who is paid to = drive will drive. =C2=A0This is why the "advisor" function is vastly pref= erable to me. >=20 > I think I heard three different roles from you: >=20 > * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to the = RPC in cases of dispute. > * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical req= uirements. =C2=A0 > * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community when= addressing strategic requirements. >=20 >=20 > Is that about right? Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or "th= ought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the descript= ion of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, but = I think that there are two other roles to consider: * Decider for policy and strategy issues * Arbiter for conflicts=20 Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these roles:= * Client representative - the stream manager concerned * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the LLC * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I wa= nted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really auth= or vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency between s= treams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line management= hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. Brian C From nobody Mon Oct 12 14:46:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6983A0A47 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=PV7Qg5C/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=EqmvLDDf Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHGsrjljZASN for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EADFF3A0A3E for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11765109E; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=gU gQAtuLjg1pGor2CByNuCyvp8MsUh5XFsDceWtuANA=; b=PV7Qg5C/FOs5+xq8gx P/vSs5lAJhe72O9ecBqsl/8rsCxYxjSMsVpz9Zzm8Fg6NxQwntnJPOZiEYgYHpps hp4p06xxgIVK4aVlKWqwi6yI4Gx4LJAOUhOGkTZ0qPZe9KmHjdD/w/ve0jPcRjKg gPXCsIGQvt4eVFMatEh3gDW5bUQ4/QU5pGen+C+ic2CN1Na4Ogwsv8kegNpcjYLl C5i2BrZBiFC0j3xYQRPjvYo9ju9h0/fHSg5ane6Vz/2wVn1Z+awCULtPESmbvK0G 0Zm8/ZTy3QnEkGzimhnyJD6GiyfvaazBOGOIjZLyX3zuMkppZ3MuFUC3OGRq6TZB 1sFA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gUgQAtuLjg1pGor2CByNuCyvp8MsUh5XFsDceWtuA NA=; b=EqmvLDDfuIgcHBNoiwNiSWdef11rSj4fVWTJY9r0ooihb9Fhbc+ddJ2Bi TY0l5cL39BOR40qTjoZgEaVEg15VZ1qe61Svxsyam14w/V8LavzRSJE7E7E8RRZO CaVYbX19+5Ao8XiKj5nCtGVJpJuCuUKzbEGoY90kiFaEIJOdsg6Zpq7J4d83KsAN kbiQtzgh/OZLYMrD9pXQsGWJtaOLRgoBGipChsMRA4J2YHvn0WCAQgE2jzvg+F3l 8CMXKnR00P752mGQqGn3JLchBI4psMa7Vby/WrmgFC4zxHc83/ItvzTD9shvOF7z Il5nw3S97ZoqXJprTdjPHeo0U9tSw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheekgddtfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghr thhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgfejueduieffledtgeelheejvdettdejudduhefggeefgfekgfeu ieetgefftddtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 651BB20068; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <6d8255e7-94c4-49db-a84d-6c9cb16065cc@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:45:52 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "Eliot Lear" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:46:14 -0000 Well, Brian beat me to it. I agree with what he said there. I was goin= g to call out the decider function; but missed the arbiter function. I = think that role is generally something the client representative and pro= duct manager do, generally. That is, if an author is being troublesome,= the RPC staff could escalate to their management, who would talk to the= corresponding client representative and they work something out togethe= r. One thing that was pointed out to me was that I might have accidentally = denigrated the series by referring to it as a product. I thought that I= was being crisp, but clearly was not. My intent was to describe the *s= ervice* provided as the product. The editing and publishing and so fort= h. The series is more than that. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, at 07:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: > ... > >> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given a= uthority to dominate discussions in this area. =C2=A0Someone who is paid= to drive will drive. =C2=A0This is why the "advisor" function is vastly= preferable to me. > >=20 > > I think I heard three different roles from you: > >=20 > > * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to t= he RPC in cases of dispute. > > * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical = requirements. =C2=A0 > > * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community w= hen addressing strategic requirements. > >=20 > >=20 > > Is that about right? >=20 > Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or=20= > "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the=20= > description of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for=20= > Martin, but I think that there are two other roles to consider: >=20 > * Decider for policy and strategy issues > * Arbiter for conflicts=20 >=20 > Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these rol= es: >=20 > * Client representative - the stream manager concerned > * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the L= LC > * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) > * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program= >=20 > but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I= =20 > wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really= =20 > author vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency=20= > between streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC lin= e=20 > management hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. >=20 > Brian C >=20 >=20 > From nobody Mon Oct 12 17:14:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A7A3A0D43 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2MCym_5C4B9f for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035ED3A0D40 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse371.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.117] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx169.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kS7x9-000zMS-AY for rfced-future@iab.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:14:09 +0200 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9GHc4FzzzBsp for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.49] (helo=xmail11.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kS7x6-0007vn-Fx for rfced-future@iab.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 6290 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2020 00:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.139]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail11.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 13 Oct 2020 00:14:03 -0000 To: Brian E Carpenter , Eliot Lear , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: <0adc36d9-9f04-1341-5b38-46b59bb1d277@huitema.net> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:14:03 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------10E95897F6D03695765938F5" Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.117 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0ZXzIHSbE2lF8iY6Od2jmSypSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4hxxWtvykVpynSeASfIFEDtQVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuEUE6zyPc6aUCdl00F/tjba+42Vki7412dpbhrD2d47zbC3VvU djSCswikK/licfX+oIF6uBSWByrPG2Vxuo/vVPllrFEbCkMryfcYCsgMUJObfBQoU3roWy2GH1DY sAiH3gousbgNfxi2R3uFLvZP/HBXvrLBlKCVRjjdPbjQ4HnBNho1Lszw5OO01yYoll8q2UgzFF+j HNSbIoW1Q++Wvj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFg3eKzPG9E5MikC2dVXWcpK172i/E5sOgbaCtBiSIx 1XwCY8vmv+JqOVJamBHfOGVwjn7Xut/lXagsodd5qqODTFiwcpU4fyz75jxpU98RPGiH1Wgh6RAe nBR+licROGb39x3Pp0qQsqDkbqmcZOiQ00yoa+Dg6Nzs0x/RbDKRZyY8e9soYGBJ4VWjxfuYztwr cuyeNztZhTczEttfN8GcQie12lTu81QucaD9n7tPrXuXCC1A5Cukky0WFo38JXT3Y80OmAux3oN1 3+ztUznezyJgodWRTTB4t8qci9yorr83o7TP54FLJfg9sR3SxHLFC1dFBEeOEEWCiA5ZX7XonrL7 qYQkJZ5VxtTvfdK9sYW+axx2DzNv8BNlsyaVn+Vg4W6HWJuTtzDWUj7PAWd/3UVkhX78ZcdZtWJt ri4lXS4599fEDT1GENo62d+DqD+gavEa4Cf1ILpAKBLSDHQENgjpXL2y/ONOC04/YEfTu1ss+n2f fnQxt6aJ7klZab8CvOT2YjlrAxveXsTwUzCTkiX4qyX2d5a1xbDejUjyqRVeiJQ5XjnH4gzAuCMQ 8aUxL7hrJSk60SF3F6RYOYr2 X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:14:14 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------10E95897F6D03695765938F5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/12/2020 1:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: > ... >>> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given authority to dominate discussions in this area.  Someone who is paid to drive will drive.  This is why the "advisor" function is vastly preferable to me. >> I think I heard three different roles from you: >> >> * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to the RPC in cases of dispute. >> * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical requirements.   >> * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community when addressing strategic requirements. >> >> >> Is that about right? > Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the description of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, but I think that there are two other roles to consider: > > * Decider for policy and strategy issues > * Arbiter for conflicts > > Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these roles: > > * Client representative - the stream manager concerned > * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the LLC > * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) > * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program > > but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really author vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency between streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line management hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. Brian, Can you elaborate why you don't want the stream managers or their delegate to do that? -- Christian Huitema --------------10E95897F6D03695765938F5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 10/12/2020 1:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote:
...

I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given authority to dominate discussions in this area.  Someone who is paid to drive will drive.  This is why the "advisor" function is vastly preferable to me.

I think I heard three different roles from you:

  * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to the RPC in cases of dispute.
  * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical requirements.  
  * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community when addressing strategic requirements.


Is that about right?

Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the description of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, but I think that there are two other roles to consider:

 * Decider for policy and strategy issues
 * Arbiter for conflicts 

Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these roles:

 * Client representative - the stream manager concerned
 * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the LLC
 * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive)
 * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program

but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really author vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency between streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line management hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular.

Brian,

Can you elaborate why you don't want the stream managers or their delegate to do that?

-- Christian Huitema

--------------10E95897F6D03695765938F5-- From nobody Mon Oct 12 17:46:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE16B3A0D60 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt6QvKHRUBSg for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DEC3A0D5F for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id n14so15406154pff.6 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=82Znxan9eFEnGQOu+MvRyafzcubmNS0zo+qG3gbuQ7c=; b=q792GQWQxUSLyW4GQa3BNGXXbyo9ck++YMi2yqnw/H98K/fe/GEztAkD2hedIBRZ7l HmPx1+sV4cF9phFZx/TQQFF6G/Ck7uzgPwu02qRtmoSB0Nm7PGNfiNRs0/XEKHjVTbCE dwE1Q8qVwEG+BooG5fISK2+sKbkosfH+LP3Aa5Bj+JeO0OUgU85/kcYD4MiPMQsEd8xH 0azDBqWQE4CPUTYh+R3uoVM2oLSVq7b1iAq26sbUjoPYa492ftHI+bW2ssxK18iCujIp X6AtY6JvSJ44J1XUwdtbiKXOEJ4s7tziGiiWcmbo1iholF9e1k1PuVb3cG9XSaDwXxho dL0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=82Znxan9eFEnGQOu+MvRyafzcubmNS0zo+qG3gbuQ7c=; b=BZ47hGvMTgGCqvt1fEhjDcFKqMkZd9azEhGwuJQ/ZkX+5zXRu0i/d2ByLv7MwrrhRG 36PO/Gog5T9mjVIgsT7w7Vw8JmaYOY6eDDmAk2ZJX7JsOyLFzgG/pbBmk5lgZp6nGXWn 6Ex3KpW1+0I0p9UV+MQffjz9JExPqQsXpuLhAS4GgN5PheB2iAhDUfKYIS7r/Dnqhqew bXwwRAQk4mWh4yQslfLbyvQOKRXqGVJobLA7wlXzP/fCdGKClKrEdONxdd64jHKeW+oT wT/fOgtFo021S64yRfP7ccxCyfkTYyUZpi/VjvcAxhfQUNhDoFoikix1eDqj21FdVgQW 0cLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532URvUZXi5V8HuU6w2NGqA2w3iYxVbsQNQw/f3XkqgZIkHm1Om4 Y8dD8iLBe33OJuE0D5ztVtfpTIjpu2wJrg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1Qr2on2nP2gQUfc24j+Dy6Zf6XYFozRWC4qAQMGXNfA1awLvbN8E7cWSgGIiDeWIlZzaaVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a65:5784:: with SMTP id b4mr14874099pgr.217.1602549993534; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.25] ([151.210.132.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w10sm24815732pjy.13.2020.10.12.17.46.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:46:32 -0700 (PDT) To: Christian Huitema , Eliot Lear , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> <0adc36d9-9f04-1341-5b38-46b59bb1d277@huitema.net> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:46:28 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0adc36d9-9f04-1341-5b38-46b59bb1d277@huitema.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:46:36 -0000 On 13-Oct-20 13:14, Christian Huitema wrote: > On 10/12/2020 1:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >=20 >> On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: >> ... >>>> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given au= thority to dominate discussions in this area. =C2=A0Someone who is paid t= o drive will drive. =C2=A0This is why the "advisor" function is vastly pr= eferable to me. >>> I think I heard three different roles from you: >>> >>> * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to th= e RPC in cases of dispute. >>> * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical r= equirements. =C2=A0 >>> * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community wh= en addressing strategic requirements. >>> >>> >>> Is that about right? >> Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or = "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the descr= iption of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, b= ut I think that there are two other roles to consider: >> >> * Decider for policy and strategy issues >> * Arbiter for conflicts=20 >> >> Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these rol= es: >> >> * Client representative - the stream manager concerned >> * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the L= LC >> * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) >> * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program= >> >> but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I= wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really a= uthor vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency betwee= n streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line managem= ent hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. >=20 > Brian, >=20 > Can you elaborate why you don't want the stream managers or their deleg= ate to do that? Simply because (to take silly examples) I wouldn't want different streams= to take different decisions about use of the Oxford comma, or how to spe= ll "acknowledgment". In general I think we want editorial consistency acr= oss streams. Maybe the answer would to have the stream managers act as a committee to = arbitrate disputes? Brian C From nobody Mon Oct 12 18:30:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726F03A0D6D for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj173WU4r_mN for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EDD43A0D6C for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xse130.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.130] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx128.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kS99O-000N2O-TN for rfced-future@iab.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:30:51 +0200 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9J0B275CzBVf for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.5.2.31] (helo=xmail09.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kS99O-0000id-6O for rfced-future@iab.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 13860 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2020 01:30:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.107]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.139]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail09.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 13 Oct 2020 01:30:48 -0000 To: Brian E Carpenter , Eliot Lear , Martin Thomson Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> <0adc36d9-9f04-1341-5b38-46b59bb1d277@huitema.net> From: Christian Huitema Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXtavGxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA1ou9A5MHTP9N3jfsWzlDZ+jPnQkusmc7sfLmWVz1Rmu0 J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEw3G4 Nwi4QEpAAXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwMFCQlmAYAFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgEC F4AACgkQELAmqKBYtJQbMwD/ebj/qnSbthC/5kD5DxZ/Ip0CGJw5QBz/+fJp3R8iAlsBAMjK r2tmyWyJz0CUkVG24WaR5EAJDvgwDv8h22U6QVkAuDgEXtavGxIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQJoM 6MUAIqpoqdCIiACiEynZf7nlJg2Eu0pXIhbUGONdAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEEw3G4Nwi4QEpA AXUUELAmqKBYtJQFAl7WrxsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQELAmqKBYtJRm2wD7BzeK5gEXSmBcBf0j BYdSaJcXNzx4yPLbP4GnUMAyl2cBAJzcsR4RkwO4dCRqM9CHpVJCwHtbUDJaa55//E0kp+gH Message-ID: <950508ae-62dc-15e7-b982-e87750bae955@huitema.net> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:30:48 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.130 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.130/32 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.130/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0Z1apovzGPsYhEeBL1aoZmqpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDjRzgyua+oKUgQGcbmeu+KPhY RkpFG1KU35iPF8F1Y4inCm37x0tzT3k/exITH2gdQVFPFt+4EqMnp4CTDhVg0lKlzDUUdXZXKiJE 9FAeBYpBbCpe79Kozx0nomzoHNuEkCyqCRM97FQO8waqZwM6Te42Vki7412dpbhrD2d47zbC3VvU djSCswikK/licfX+oIF6uBSWByrPG2Vxuo/vVPllrFEbCkMryfcYCsgMUJObfBQoU3roWy2GH1DY sAiH3gousbgNfxi2R3uFLvZP/HBXvrLBlKCVRjjdPbjQ4HnBNho1Lszw5OO01yYoll8q2UgzFF+j HNSbIoW1Q++Wvj3dKxLhoxcmaInYbR5vlqFg3eKzPG9E5MikC2dVXWcpK172i/E5sOgbaCtBiSIx 1XwCY8vmv+JqOVJamBHfOGVwjn7Xut/lXagsodd5qqODTFiwcpU4fyz75jxpU98RPGiH1Wgh6RAe nBR+licROGbXNqJfz6msVASTB+MD+1/p7GPMfR4JPnPUgCtpcJi9K3USOGKCflVNznHEXGWPiR7o Oo70iqAlsD2ZyQe0MRcocT255jZEVFiNJql3TbUl/wRRiI4FYjmNWKK4C97xdQjTPpuFqUUQz+mM 8JAD4ECWHr6MAvEmP+Mbv2EDQu24+Bzd1TBXbJNvBC1nKO3+wSM1a6qg4SBNWnReDETGtszzl9h9 n0ntTMkFrVXIPb6OeFFfEoXm0/FPF8PR0w363ll9eIXZvfihnv+bSFQpr+WyPAxAF1L8Ie0o/U0y NFk8uXR6mMZiP8hyi9JD/oRrQtQcSyQwpbsYuxSOGTH6k0lfJmkP8s1HCfLKOW1F2ohPJ/AFMvX7 q8M4x6bP/gjzw0OgghQYwZVLClIproNi1WM01Bh4x4h9uYrmdPlyGg3lun80sIBTfGesZu6FzlJ8 P6r2OKHH5lr9xXvSM4nM3avg X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 01:30:55 -0000 On 10/12/2020 5:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 13-Oct-20 13:14, Christian Huitema wrote: >> On 10/12/2020 1:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> ... >>>>> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given a= uthority to dominate discussions in this area. =C2=A0Someone who is paid = to drive will drive. =C2=A0This is why the "advisor" function is vastly p= referable to me. >>>> I think I heard three different roles from you: >>>> >>>> * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to t= he RPC in cases of dispute. >>>> * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical = requirements. =C2=A0 >>>> * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community w= hen addressing strategic requirements. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is that about right? >>> Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or= "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the desc= ription of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, = but I think that there are two other roles to consider: >>> >>> * Decider for policy and strategy issues >>> * Arbiter for conflicts=20 >>> >>> Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these ro= les: >>> >>> * Client representative - the stream manager concerned >>> * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the = LLC >>> * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) >>> * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Progra= m >>> >>> but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why = I wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really = author vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency betwe= en streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line manage= ment hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. >> Brian, >> >> Can you elaborate why you don't want the stream managers or their dele= gate to do that? > Simply because (to take silly examples) I wouldn't want different strea= ms to take different decisions about use of the Oxford comma, or how to s= pell "acknowledgment". In general I think we want editorial consistency a= cross streams. > > Maybe the answer would to have the stream managers act as a committee t= o arbitrate disputes? The reason I asked is practical. Most disputes tend to be authors not appreciating the work of the RPC, with a variety of motivations from "I think my original test sounded better" to "these edits change the meaning of the draft". The stream manager should be in a good position to check that, and either encourage the author to just go with the program, or in some cases explain to the RPC that an accommodation needs to be found. In the IETF stream, the stream manager might contact the relevant AD. Of course, this assumes that the stream managers are acting responsibly. -- Christian Huitema From nobody Mon Oct 12 19:34:14 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328C63A0DCD for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqOigJDcjyJh for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AE3C3A0DCB for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9KPH65chz6G9kH for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:34:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1602556451; bh=t6kbXJFUBCHMjw+HjGOJJHy7yU2pzT9oDppa923etro=; h=Subject:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=q4UAqSouIbzLgmtUlZKJtUPaSJpzR+/6+H0+KfrysOJuX4lRNXF/AtlOgkzyX0Ep+ k4pO+jxuTbiA5aVDKDpH3voT+oWH+osXckmXRojJoaj2rCIZlzOzDj/ROKoIJPrJSR EuTi9F7aAHwcVrOF0aA6viZBVXZYVUNq4a3VCv/U= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C9KPH39ftz6G8Vr for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <079afa5b-0701-427d-959a-66fd29aa2fa3@www.fastmail.com> <60943ae4-2d4a-46a1-7eef-16a054f442f0@gmail.com> <0adc36d9-9f04-1341-5b38-46b59bb1d277@huitema.net> <950508ae-62dc-15e7-b982-e87750bae955@huitema.net> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <8e22f872-fd91-2cb2-ace0-0954f871d598@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:34:09 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <950508ae-62dc-15e7-b982-e87750bae955@huitema.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] First Topic for Discussion: Thought Leader X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:34:13 -0000 I think there are a couple of points which relate to why I think a leader responsible for this sort of thing is helpful. 1) I assume we want consistency. 1a) Having different stream heads deciding in different cases does not help us there 1b) having the person in this role change regularly (as both the IETF stream and IAB stream heads do) seems to reduce the likelihood of consistency over time. 2) Having a committee make the decision elevates the complexity and load for each decision and discussion. That does not seem good for the series. 3) Having a person with visibility to these and other issues that arise from the RPC, who is tasked with bringing these to the attention of the community when needed seems very helpful. Yours, Joel On 10/12/2020 9:30 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > On 10/12/2020 5:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 13-Oct-20 13:14, Christian Huitema wrote: >>> On 10/12/2020 1:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> >>>> On 13-Oct-20 03:16, Eliot Lear wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> I am concerned about the potential for an individual who is given authority to dominate discussions in this area.  Someone who is paid to drive will drive.  This is why the "advisor" function is vastly preferable to me. >>>>> I think I heard three different roles from you: >>>>> >>>>> * Client representative: The person to represent "the client" to the RPC in cases of dispute. >>>>> * Product manager: A person or group of people to manage tactical requirements. >>>>> * Strategic Advisor: A person who is an advisor to the community when addressing strategic requirements. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is that about right? >>>> Speaking only for myself here, I'm not hung up on the "figurehead" or "thought leader" terminology. I think it's very useful to split the description of the role up this way. I'm certainly not answering for Martin, but I think that there are two other roles to consider: >>>> >>>> * Decider for policy and strategy issues >>>> * Arbiter for conflicts >>>> >>>> Also I have fairly clear ideas about who should fill most of these roles: >>>> >>>> * Client representative - the stream manager concerned >>>> * Product manager - the line manager of the RPC, as approved by the LLC >>>> * Strategic Advisor - a new role (proactive, not reactive) >>>> * Decider for policy and strategy - consensus of a new WG/IAB Program >>>> >>>> but I don't see a clear candidate for the Arbiter role, which is why I wanted to understand what sort of conflict might arise. If it's really author vs RPC conflicts, and assuming we want editorial consistency between streams, it really does need to be someone outside the RPC line management hierarchy and *not* tied to one stream in particular. >>> Brian, >>> >>> Can you elaborate why you don't want the stream managers or their delegate to do that? >> Simply because (to take silly examples) I wouldn't want different streams to take different decisions about use of the Oxford comma, or how to spell "acknowledgment". In general I think we want editorial consistency across streams. >> >> Maybe the answer would to have the stream managers act as a committee to arbitrate disputes? > > The reason I asked is practical. Most disputes tend to be authors not > appreciating the work of the RPC, with a variety of motivations from "I > think my original test sounded better" to "these edits change the > meaning of the draft". The stream manager should be in a good position > to check that, and either encourage the author to just go with the > program, or in some cases explain to the RPC that an accommodation needs > to be found. In the IETF stream, the stream manager might contact the > relevant AD. > > Of course, this assumes that the stream managers are acting responsibly. > > -- Christian Huitema > > From nobody Tue Oct 13 15:12:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812EF3A11B6 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AAvGh-poRwj for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A004F3A11B2 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F7E3C2DD0; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXcZQZGEHiRJ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.175] (cpe-172-113-155-155.socal.res.rr.com [172.113.155.155]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35D003C2DD1; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Sandy Ginoza In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:12:33 -0700 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Alice Russo Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <55FD97A2-C186-4CA4-B844-9E55E0D1942D@amsl.com> References: To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] some thoughts from the RPC X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 22:12:40 -0000 Hi Brian, > On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: >=20 > Thanks, Sandy and Alice, very useful. May I ask a clarifying question?=20= >=20 >> f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict=20 >=20 > Can you give some indication (obviously anonymized) about the sort of=20= > conflict that has arisen in the last few years, beyond "author/RPC > disputes=E2=80=9D? In addition to what John mentioned, a few other examples are - navigating conflicting opinions regarding XML format - which tools should be used to process documents - overall level of edit provided=20 - bigger disagreements with, or limitations of, the Style Guide Thanks, Sandy=20 >=20 > Regards > Brian Carpenter >=20 > On 09-Oct-20 08:37, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Greetings all, >>=20 >> We=E2=80=99ve been invited by the IETF Executive Director and the = Program Chairs to share some thoughts to help with the community = discussion underway. =20 >>=20 >> The RPC read the proposals and has somewhat kept up with the = discussion taking place on the list. While being sensitive to the fact = that we are a vendor, we have a few thoughts from the RPC perspective = that we hope will be helpful as discussion about v3 of the RFC Editor = model continues. =20 >>=20 >> Over the past 10 years, AMS has been part of implementing RFC Editor = models v1 and v2. During this time, the RPC has found it helpful to = have someone engaged in the activities below (in no particular order), = which allowed the RPC to focus on document production and process, and = implementation of new developments. =20 >> Note: we use =E2=80=9Csomeone=E2=80=9D because that is how the model = was structured. =20 >>=20 >> a) evolve the series, considering community goals, series continuity, = and best practices for publication and archiving (for example, the = digital preservation considerations documented in RFC 8153) >>=20 >> b) when the strategic goals influence RPC priorities, weigh tradeoffs = and explain the tradeoffs to the community; determine whether to = implement changes based on tradeoffs and feedback received (for example, = DOIs where the tradeoff was cost, both for the DOIs and contracted = programming for automated uploads, and programming effort by the RPC to = hold and display the data in various places) >>=20 >> c) monitor and engage in various community lists; outreach as needed = to address concerns, and consider suggestions for further development >>=20 >> d) discern which suggestions are worth investigating further and = implementing >>=20 >> e) update the Style Guide based on best common practice and input = from the community and RPC >>=20 >> f) mediate/resolve any RFC-Editor-related conflict=20 >>=20 >> g) dive into RPC operations as needed, for example: >> - mediate author/RPC disputes (e.g., some authors object to the = adopted Style Guide when applied to their documents or the Style Guide = doesn=E2=80=99t address their issue; the RPC can usually, but not = always, work through discrepancies with the authors) >>=20 >> - provide input regarding best practices for archiving, display, = etc. (fyi: there was a lot of discussion with the then-RSE about items = like this in preparation for v3 transition) >>=20 >> h) make a decision or call consensus in a timely manner to keep = things moving >>=20 >>=20 >> Here are a few specific community suggestions we are aware of that = may benefit from SME guidance:=20 >>=20 >> - revamp of the AUTH48 process >> - addition of ePub as a publication format=20 >> - a process by which bis documents can be turned around more quickly=20= >> - revamp of the errata system=20 >> - Style Guide updates >> - v3 XML formatting guidance=20 >>=20 >> This information is provided simply to help the discussion along. =20 >>=20 >> Thank you, >>=20 >> Sandy Ginoza, Director >> RFC Production Center >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >> 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538 >> Phone: +1 (510) 492-4000 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future From nobody Fri Oct 16 08:36:19 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0D93A0F9E for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yAO-9xzhkJp1 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67FF93A0F99 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=860; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602862577; x=1604072177; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject: message-id:date:to; bh=dTYNZx7q/47t67F+fDQlC6G9jIHYCwvmDn/V8Sl4VUs=; b=C2GIGzDSow98a2fd3d/YSbyjFo8f8tWsxrbfL0SdOZRUMU9bWnGSg7qO gOFlbmebG024E2XHBiaIel9GMfXP7qOOOEJiPhVe9fZLJQTnF7YzQ4vjj Dps1ZxyudyTyc5K9+2+qJgaLVNDwGzSMMQTqNwNe4JMDLhlXscunkFRyC s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7BAAWvYlf/xbLJq1gHgEBCxIMQIU?= =?us-ascii?q?+ASAShGmJBaJPgWkLAQEBDQEBLwQBAYZYJjgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYV?= =?us-ascii?q?thhyBCwImAoQYgn2fK44XdoEyhVeEeIEOKo1RggCBOByCH4R0ARIBboJKM4I?= =?us-ascii?q?sBLd6gnSDFpdaAx+DFooIhR6PEq99g14CBAYFAhWBayNncDMaCBsVZQGCPz0?= =?us-ascii?q?SGQ2caD8DaAIGAQkBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,383,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30412243" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Oct 2020 15:36:13 +0000 Received: from [10.61.193.11] ([10.61.193.11]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09GFaCBE009283 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:36:13 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:36:12 +0200 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.193.11, [10.61.193.11] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:36:19 -0000 Friends, When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99em = up and knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the = process was that we would discuss things in email and then during = meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and = otherwise iterate back in person. We were thinking of a tempo of about = every two weeks. We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at = Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 = Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. = This is in keeping with our rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 = days in front of the next IETF. The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of that = prior to the meeting. Comments on this by Tuesday, please. Thanks, Eliot= From nobody Fri Oct 16 13:24:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34A93A0AF3 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvpS5Gm-eEtG for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E7AA3A0AF1 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B271300B9C for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:24:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id fnYOMcGSeMC7 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4E3C300ADB; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:24:02 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:24:02 -0400 From: housley@vigilsec.com To: Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: housley@vigilsec.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:24:09 -0000 I would not be able to participate at that time on that day. Obviously,=20 if others are available, please proceed. Russ On 2020-10-16 11:36, Eliot Lear wrote: > Friends, >=20 > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99= em up and > knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the process = was that we > would discuss things in email and then during meetings, confirm them > in email, close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate back in > person. We were thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks. >=20 > We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at Thursda= y, > November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 Australia/Melbourne, > 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. This is in keeping > with our rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the > next IETF. >=20 > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of that > prior to the meeting. >=20 > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Eliot From nobody Sun Oct 18 16:57:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B243A109F for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:57:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=GkwdGqHK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nMYibpaW Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XN9WeZHewxOu for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62AE63A109E for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86601793; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:57:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=8 CKCAT+e4zrGcf1pldc4mvrtnalxpfZr/+dx/PL++Bw=; b=GkwdGqHKbv4yZ++I4 uaB2rsBwvrBe+6/E+m2PLnWrJEhWr5Et4/K5UnwJ2ikLubjgUiBTTZKD4JuF17Q/ o0koMPU9eo+L2WLsLtow9yJBjmJj8lzG3B6RNFCb0hQN2FqwyvX6TDqu68PJq1Gs SVeU6/Rxwry2xnkLTLCVuKm+MaMHJZVrKCHM2qqQDZI9/wW0d3dmCzqdHJENZPU5 fuppmV9v5aYwGj/IfqdU5ojndVwptps+eFnugbNA4o6IL6EhepjJlEQoR1STWNJ+ gT1dtw2HmsPZE7HDSZ3t8ufDqLAuA3uRjykNfYAb4VdUE2sS7AJGNPMERjWO2l7t Xb9GA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=8CKCAT+e4zrGcf1pldc4mvrtnalxpfZr/+dx/PL++ Bw=; b=nMYibpaWA9EuCCo3luPY+3Nj3n1CdsHqAl57r82SUGMl0uXldM3Xhi6JB ORWjfbBer+EgOMco57AMoj9XbwRzNaJvPL5H/NYCUCwq4v8aoofdFZAaGN5qSL+S QP0gvDq5SqT0nUPHjnucXhyxPzCZQo0NyzcMX1BkYCfLENO53t5MM+HiuN2C2aFY YfqV5Nmuz4TYPwZJLlANSXEjgmCeKRf6HUD7bkVHf1+65XXkwoRtb+6OMa8DMhdt lHCfOSPftrQsCgi7SYNqh2bkpwDUIcrIbg1+bOAbtmUaCyoApcjswvD/MkCchAm6 dGz2F2nP3bNNpTw/oq/SMNWnjtCvg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrjedtgddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepteeghfevjeefvdffjeeuieeuvdevvddvudejfedthffhvefhvdfhgfduieelffev necuffhomhgrihhnpehirggsrdhorhhgpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledrud ejrdduheekrddvhedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghi lhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 253403280064; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 10:57:41 +1100 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:57:49 -0000 Eliot, I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall a = message that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the two-week = period around IETF109, although I can't find a reference at the moment. = It might be worth double-checking with them, if you haven't already. Cheers, > On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear = wrote: >=20 > Friends, >=20 > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99e= m up and knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the = process was that we would discuss things in email and then during = meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and = otherwise iterate back in person. We were thinking of a tempo of about = every two weeks. >=20 > We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at = Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 = Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. = This is in keeping with our rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 = days in front of the next IETF. >=20 > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of that = prior to the meeting. >=20 > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Eliot > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Sun Oct 18 20:11:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECA03A1272 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.446 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i-bcjvoZ0vVX for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3503B3A1271 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id t22so1309372plr.9 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p+wVQUZgSOde5mNj9g7oPJ3lRrPf/5+6HN8I1hAfOME=; b=EHOvvaR8uB43kz6UOMuZhr/ou0z9sMspyJaaNceBQwU+lDq0tKl1dCQxf4yd2PuEfw 3AyfEY/JBS8Xa922Iy1jlEpcQ3vX9HgXY4A8PFUIs6E2l2MpH+/PPhAXpcrlRymKSZ2h cZlHosO9b2QPlwTyVJx8XzvC+HfGhzWR5VphYm5HSb0zGLFmvudiU2SX7QxJj5Za61er WBCYN3YiD38joOXlRRYzkfO65oUrOK4HFEwrUpOFCFT1jnEoFhzpl+qiiNOdLsyxThIi 2RkHl2tujzQXppkYbQJwJGW+UCJVhiKt5jcsMIK2RkXJOIvYU+wrxyP6gsAuNaIKTkJM RPag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p+wVQUZgSOde5mNj9g7oPJ3lRrPf/5+6HN8I1hAfOME=; b=szYmp8gb/T7fJOoGVZPQlYKXz6D9FM+r31j7GGulw8c+Ll2mF3Eiom+SR1G6bn5Nnm pqxcQnuXKi2B5wmsRuT9D42e7FAh49NvzSp+uy8Lgz7n8KZNVhTx2qZFDQSUz6aaX7UW kn5UbtE6jcwMehgNnGru4mWlSveY2cmcY9Pdb7QOdIy/qN6gtoNkaPt64l8V/+EGxZdX aafrAMhf8W//4uQSz8j85S41ND9u6uvTU+vK+qzpftkBy5pDwRRQZO1K247hqaN5q4lV lqITgfqXivhAxzNXFYiG2Pjm9PhMPR1VfinUdfrWuMTvowOfFDKV60MpbS3wGIO428En j7Ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UivlByRZ/4z/aBKgOE9crpNnBMC/IELYle9A/OvVE0PPd34pH 7C31vYP2+/BDZw9LIc4fvmFWWg25v4qalQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzctHAsQo6349JhuQ/l83T46Wzlg6VflvqsRp71gGyQznRvNJ3gkaQVd3cCDZbxBJnklQ3soQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ed54:b029:d3:d0bc:e41d with SMTP id y20-20020a170902ed54b02900d3d0bce41dmr15927996plb.13.1603077093182; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gf20sm9920675pjb.55.2020.10.18.20.11.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:11:32 -0700 (PDT) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <5a9ab927-ab07-80d1-56b7-840f060be93d@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:11:28 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 03:11:35 -0000 Currently looks OK for me. Regards Brian On 17-Oct-20 04:36, Eliot Lear wrote: > Friends, >=20 > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99= em up and knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the = process was that we would discuss things in email and then during meeting= s, confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and otherwise itera= te back in person. We were thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks.= >=20 > We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at Thursda= y, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 Australia/Melbourne, 20= :00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. This is in keeping with o= ur rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IET= F. >=20 > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of that = prior to the meeting. >=20 > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Eliot >=20 From nobody Sun Oct 18 20:52:59 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DB93A1285; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0ErZXX_fX_W; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45793A125D; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kUMEB-000NYL-Ji; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:52:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:52:50 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 03:52:58 -0000 Eliot, I share Mark's concern about the two-week period around IETF whether that is an official rule or not. From that perspective, I'd rather see if moved up a week to allow a little more clearance before IETF (and a little more time to consolidate thoughts before the scheduled meeting during the Monday Session III time at IETF. FWIW, if you are trying to equalize pain, your proposed time for the interim at 0700 UTC does not feel like a lot of rotation from the scheduled (preliminary) time for our meeting at IETF of 0900 UTC. Other than that and an obligatory and pro forma cry of pain and agony about both this proposed time and the proposed IETF time, I'll make it work if necessary albeit with no guarantees about being coherent. john --On Friday, October 16, 2020 17:36 +0200 Eliot Lear wrote: > Friends, > > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to 'set'em > up and knock'em down' in the issue tracker, where the > process was that we would discuss things in email and then > during meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that > way, and otherwise iterate back in person. We were thinking > of a tempo of about every two weeks. > > We'd like to get that going, starting with a meeting at > Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 > Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 > America/New York. This is in keeping with our rotation of > pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF. > > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status > of that prior to the meeting. > > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. > > Thanks, > > Eliot From nobody Mon Oct 19 00:52:20 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736003A14CB for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:52:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ptKdlIEsqMj1 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E113A14CA for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2088; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603093937; x=1604303537; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=blS2f1xg+H+OqnnhRXXqLsqXwc2LgPbaF7UR4fWwE3I=; b=js/qSJfWfqj3+WsbPNhPiZj1I9ILnMKFn/ABkJHLNLiWx3SSYJFwzcIB jObjFAwfRJj3wc+ksprrGW7y2Twvu1jAX/HZw3j8AwvP028QZ80DvcH52 Xj1i5qFVPLjwFt+L4sx9xobbUORYz50rMCrrIlJhuFtcoYsnzah03YFRZ o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAQBoRI1f/xbLJq1gGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQFAgU8Cg20BIBIshD2JBYgTmikTgWk?= =?us-ascii?q?LAQEBDQEBLwQBAYRKAoIMJjsDDQIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FbYVyAQEBAwE?= =?us-ascii?q?jVgULCxgCAiYCAlcGE4Mmgl0grVl2gTKFV4UJgQ4qAY1QggCBESccgh8uPoJ?= =?us-ascii?q?cBIEoARIBIYMXM4IsBLd6gnSDFpdbAx+DFooJhR6PE7AAg14CBAYFAhWBfgM?= =?us-ascii?q?NZ3AzGggbFWUBgj4+EhkNnGg/AzACNgIGAQkBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,394,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30459230" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Oct 2020 07:52:12 +0000 Received: from [10.61.241.125] ([10.61.241.125]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09J7qBtO011023 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:52:12 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:52:10 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.241.125, [10.61.241.125] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:52:18 -0000 Time is short, I=E2=80=99m afraid. If people would rather, we can start = a two week cadence from the IETF meeting. I think that=E2=80=99s what = I=E2=80=99m hearing. Eliot > On 19 Oct 2020, at 05:52, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > Eliot, >=20 > I share Mark's concern about the two-week period around IETF > whether that is an official rule or not. =46rom that perspective, > I'd rather see if moved up a week to allow a little more > clearance before IETF (and a little more time to consolidate > thoughts before the scheduled meeting during the Monday Session > III time at IETF. FWIW, if you are trying to equalize pain, > your proposed time for the interim at 0700 UTC does not feel > like a lot of rotation from the scheduled (preliminary) time for > our meeting at IETF of 0900 UTC. >=20 > Other than that and an obligatory and pro forma cry of pain and > agony about both this proposed time and the proposed IETF time, > I'll make it work if necessary albeit with no guarantees about > being coherent.=20 >=20 > john >=20 >=20 > --On Friday, October 16, 2020 17:36 +0200 Eliot Lear > wrote: >=20 >> Friends, >>=20 >> When last we left our heroes we were proposing to 'set'em >> up and knock'em down' in the issue tracker, where the >> process was that we would discuss things in email and then >> during meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that >> way, and otherwise iterate back in person. We were thinking >> of a tempo of about every two weeks. >>=20 >> We'd like to get that going, starting with a meeting at >> Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 >> Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 >> America/New York. This is in keeping with our rotation of >> pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF. >>=20 >> The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status >> of that prior to the meeting. >>=20 >> Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> Eliot >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Oct 19 04:32:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA62C3A0B20 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:32:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JlGSj-kJcjB1 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968C33A0B04 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kUTOW-000Ozg-Us; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:32:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:31:59 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Eliot Lear cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:32:08 -0000 Eliot, Ack. You did not, however, respond to my observation that two consecutive meetings, one an interim at 0700 UTV and one at IETF at 0900 UTC does not appear to be rotating time zones to share the pain. john --On Monday, October 19, 2020 09:52 +0200 Eliot Lear wrote: > Time is short, I'm afraid. If people would rather, we can > start a two week cadence from the IETF meeting. I think > that's what I'm hearing. > > Eliot > >> On 19 Oct 2020, at 05:52, John C Klensin >> wrote: >> >> Eliot, >> >> I share Mark's concern about the two-week period around IETF >> whether that is an official rule or not. From that >> perspective, I'd rather see if moved up a week to allow a >> little more clearance before IETF (and a little more time to >> consolidate thoughts before the scheduled meeting during the >> Monday Session III time at IETF. FWIW, if you are trying to >> equalize pain, your proposed time for the interim at 0700 UTC >> does not feel like a lot of rotation from the scheduled >> (preliminary) time for our meeting at IETF of 0900 UTC. >> >> Other than that and an obligatory and pro forma cry of pain >> and agony about both this proposed time and the proposed IETF >> time, I'll make it work if necessary albeit with no >> guarantees about being coherent. >> >> john >> >> >> --On Friday, October 16, 2020 17:36 +0200 Eliot Lear >> wrote: >> >>> Friends, >>> >>> When last we left our heroes we were proposing to 'set'em >>> up and knock'em down' in the issue tracker, where the >>> process was that we would discuss things in email and then >>> during meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can >>> that way, and otherwise iterate back in person. We were >>> thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks. >>> >>> We'd like to get that going, starting with a meeting at >>> Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 >>> Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 >>> America/New York. This is in keeping with our rotation of >>> pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF. >>> >>> The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a >>> status of that prior to the meeting. >>> >>> Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Eliot >> >> > From nobody Mon Oct 19 04:44:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDB03A0B6E for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:44:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HUJTzKcEF_zo for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5C3A3A0B30 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:44:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603107880; x=1604317480; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NeCjY99ojYa5tKozB/9c7StatUziAhyvFuOF1VS1pFU=; b=OP0X1/rBINkE2mCjqNLVrtWKjYpcTaSyzbeSS+QIOSNa75y+XLrrl4qk kGclcagvVIf8LCGvpheRy1tocVPHgq7zyAxqjgTBM38J3SjxCvGYE5cdA KRY/Bu1DK5lwKgNe4/bYiSnY6Gw7gv9dSzpLY3SLIgB1sA6p3AuI85rV7 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BzAACQe41f/xbLJq1gGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQFAgU8Cg20BIBIsjUKHbSaaPIFpCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ0BAS8EAQGESgKCDiY5BQ0CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthW2FcgEBAQECATo?= =?us-ascii?q?/BQsLGC5XBhODJoJdIK1RdIE0hVeEfIE4jVGCAIERJwwQgh8uPoJcBIEoARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BIYNKgiwEt3qCdIMWl1sDH4MWigmFHo8TsACDXgIEBgUCFYFsImdwMxoIGxV?= =?us-ascii?q?lAYI+PhIZDY4rF44mPwMwAjYCBgoBAQMJjkgBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,394,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30463245" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Oct 2020 11:44:36 +0000 Received: from [10.61.172.171] ([10.61.172.171]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09JBiYTI013686 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:44:36 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Eliot Lear In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:44:34 +0200 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.172.171, [10.61.172.171] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:44:43 -0000 Yeah, we have rotation collisions. We can fix that after the IETF if we = postpone. Eliot > On 19 Oct 2020, at 13:31, John C Klensin wrote: >=20 > Eliot, >=20 > Ack. > You did not, however, respond to my observation that two > consecutive meetings, one an interim at 0700 UTV and one at IETF > at 0900 UTC does not appear to be rotating time zones to share > the pain. >=20 > john >=20 >=20 > --On Monday, October 19, 2020 09:52 +0200 Eliot Lear > wrote: >=20 >> Time is short, I'm afraid. If people would rather, we can >> start a two week cadence from the IETF meeting. I think >> that's what I'm hearing. >>=20 >> Eliot >>=20 >>> On 19 Oct 2020, at 05:52, John C Klensin >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Eliot, >>>=20 >>> I share Mark's concern about the two-week period around IETF >>> whether that is an official rule or not. =46rom that >>> perspective, I'd rather see if moved up a week to allow a >>> little more clearance before IETF (and a little more time to >>> consolidate thoughts before the scheduled meeting during the >>> Monday Session III time at IETF. FWIW, if you are trying to >>> equalize pain, your proposed time for the interim at 0700 UTC >>> does not feel like a lot of rotation from the scheduled >>> (preliminary) time for our meeting at IETF of 0900 UTC. >>>=20 >>> Other than that and an obligatory and pro forma cry of pain >>> and agony about both this proposed time and the proposed IETF >>> time, I'll make it work if necessary albeit with no >>> guarantees about being coherent.=20 >>>=20 >>> john >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --On Friday, October 16, 2020 17:36 +0200 Eliot Lear >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Friends, >>>>=20 >>>> When last we left our heroes we were proposing to 'set'em >>>> up and knock'em down' in the issue tracker, where the >>>> process was that we would discuss things in email and then >>>> during meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can >>>> that way, and otherwise iterate back in person. We were >>>> thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks. >>>>=20 >>>> We'd like to get that going, starting with a meeting at >>>> Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 >>>> Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 >>>> America/New York. This is in keeping with our rotation of >>>> pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF. >>>>=20 >>>> The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a >>>> status of that prior to the meeting. >>>>=20 >>>> Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks, >>>>=20 >>>> Eliot >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Oct 19 18:33:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3A23A097F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7M7e3XLdPWjc for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B00D3A0985 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id v6so2333138lfa.13 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZleH6Jg0Z9fxWPmxP2FtPzJExrH+MbZssdS3kqDR5eM=; b=cGDQdGmMdR4O9TloDsNYYkYXSEjLCUYcVapY/OErzqisMBksDQ0jXrw4YWwkPa+nvj mv8Y94TLFKbHZg7lepTH/WUxKLF7JjAswxSdOIjgXbMNYyIAZu4XF0EGE2GqfameqjUQ ZjQK8ng5B8cFg6ss/M/pGODWreY/qhLtwGCgnQeEmwyiSlt/7hVxN1MIk6gRGvkhmqV4 bzNB3lO3gKScQMAsabGJXsvqCYgLhmCqYta/PB103jIjWZNdQzE0+hqmF9i2T2bZ10kR DQFiiPffpwQ9g4CyInw5G/wwPfZc2SWFj+0WY5CRJKn98crhONXI547m/bM3BBJ8vyL9 qRZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZleH6Jg0Z9fxWPmxP2FtPzJExrH+MbZssdS3kqDR5eM=; b=UOOPb5VDZfspQUe7qjTldsGPiTaYWaGW+MwLbdPFAWW9N/UOpujyM4TTdromwmTguc gn0nlMGnw18jOClLgQ8pGxPC61HpupaSb6wbc3i2j4w1NrSiFlwV4kBFI/dCHFi4wGMS Gdv75lOSOj3M9asjjF7AS9JAK67jlQpQBDPTIW3ofu29AiPcbQeOF4P+lqkHl4CCntfh tWnLFdJS9m1RqwyDOwUe/YQ47q0I3filDt5oIQjp50npiyjeDQ8TMxwU1/CHRlLzSdFY YvJJnKJudLholJ9VXqiQhO5ng74Gmhoo3x1J7mSmW/trwUPPmkD8VKNt55MxT3lFGnD0 Qexw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325zEOD3byBCqSKeI7NGmpQPqotv9F1d8RqgvoQDDSyJ6deBmlD zFHDJwzig+sX0xRwPu4BNmuuYgTggd1zrpmYt78p7w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQGMAjuln0uzXZjKlNdE9ymRR+jXKe8TtxWluPLaX+UrIZGI4jMrQb7UIfaPVGSH1ZZLNDpw11HuVro8hyQTE= X-Received: by 2002:a19:1c7:: with SMTP id 190mr108768lfb.516.1603157625321; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:33:09 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mark Nottingham Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6d77a05b21038b0" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 01:33:50 -0000 --000000000000c6d77a05b21038b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to the IETF meeting. Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two weeks. I would prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the meetings need to be longer -- and otherwise use the mailing list. -Ekr On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham wrote: > Eliot, > > I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall a > message that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the two-week > period around IETF109, although I can't find a reference at the moment. I= t > might be worth double-checking with them, if you haven't already. > > Cheers, > > > > On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear > wrote: > > > > Friends, > > > > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99= em up and > knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the process wa= s that we would > discuss things in email and then during meetings, confirm them in email, > close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate back in person. We wer= e > thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks. > > > > We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at Thursda= y, > November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 > Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. This is in keeping with our > rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF. > > > > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of that > prior to the meeting. > > > > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eliot > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000c6d77a05b21038b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to t= he IETF meeting. Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two we= eks. I would prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the meetings need to= be longer -- and otherwise use the mailing list.

<= div>-Ekr

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
Eliot,

I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall a mes= sage that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the two-week period= around IETF109, although I can't find a reference at the moment. It mi= ght be worth double-checking with them, if you haven't already.

Cheers,


> On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org&= gt; wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80= =99em up and knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the= process was that we would discuss things in email and then during meetings= , confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate = back in person.=C2=A0 We were thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks.=
>
> We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at Thursd= ay, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 Australia/Melbourne, 20:= 00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York.=C2=A0 This is in keeping with= our rotation of pain.=C2=A0 This puts us about 10 days in front of the nex= t IETF.
>
> The agenda will be open issues.=C2=A0 The chairs will send a status of= that prior to the meeting.
>
> Comments on this by Tuesday, please.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future= @iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-fut= ure

--
Mark Nottingham=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.mnot.net/

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--000000000000c6d77a05b21038b0-- From nobody Mon Oct 19 18:34:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479503A098B for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgfJQ_o9DB6N for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x129.google.com (mail-il1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A8D3A098C for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x129.google.com with SMTP id p16so288679ilq.5 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=9py4WXptzCUOERTFwN4VmHG08XXgh78o+1ytlJ+v6sg=; b=vgqrAPjnjAfRI77PY2YIVlcuNtQgxnM0W7c8mIwZHkJAfht5PrmOkHHTWikQ0/PITw b7dDiQ4EYL0YIeHEOGpTxpgE//vxKY4dkjXLLxJtEyl+i/x4uN4AxyI0XFjjNcIt2SlT I0R2ZvXtRYFEuq0WTHG4momG3c1RiNISxZ9TakBPIhXg0SBdcjOzVFBTlEAMad6O4zl/ PzT3nJMFE8qYlmVSAhk16B6z2m1S8Kv71STufgbUFWkYsnxJ2tT036IlwAGF8vKwMkij jlr9dtMTa23lcJxSmMxD4O/iqARdIBWDQCcbG5tLsDVRiPDyBEPvkAq9KyKfS6CFPBmp 1uHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=9py4WXptzCUOERTFwN4VmHG08XXgh78o+1ytlJ+v6sg=; b=jbHvsv8w0ExK6OnyTNslTvmoVcnpICV+tAcqsxrdsMHxroUzUCY5r+rVeYK6oYNOcL 0X4Q2u10YKFghknLur4mPR1uyPoogKOC8Tuj4Qi4JMg8svHP/IkoORhuySGe/slo8yx3 /yZegdqXzyV3YZ2/WPH3dGKWefybavfraC01yug46Ng+Ypc4QAUS6jyQMTax28os4cat ex18VPh4tknL8X9wOF5YbgJoa8nsmYVjhx6Nxzwj4VDr1GifBpc4gxdJNLPtRgUafORD w8vGkX4UPEgqpHYzdEMNZI79+om14SbCwuBcqRHd7/ruhfMBolOB14ondG6MQqKmNZPH n8+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Y91lHTj1lQtySdFpBQdp2+8tZNNGGW0swB3XhCcRPFA34VzGv NRh7heNxHIlSGex/WQwOZfMqp7GjRy0Bwt8zWTU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxbp3PAVAJuvfWcVwQoGrb0DZFNOicxERrjSiakYv9+ppOwS0Wp6QbI3m4tpAF4yUFu5TiBw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:d686:: with SMTP id p6mr215539iln.161.1603157692512; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z9sm313116iln.87.2020.10.19.18.34.51 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <8381391a-f642-96ff-e349-e59819b526b2@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:34:50 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C77122DEC2935DF65F12581A" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 01:34:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C77122DEC2935DF65F12581A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/19/2020 9:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to the IETF meeting. > Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two weeks. I would > prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the meetings need to be > longer -- and otherwise use the mailing list. +1 on both of EKRs points. Mike > > -Ekr > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham > wrote: > > Eliot, > > I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall > a message that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the > two-week period around IETF109, although I can't find a reference > at the moment. It might be worth double-checking with them, if you > haven't already. > > Cheers, > > > > On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear > > wrote: > > > > Friends, > > > > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to ‘set’em up and > knock’em down’ in the issue tracker, where the process was that we > would discuss things in email and then during meetings, confirm > them in email, close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate > back in person.  We were thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks. > > > > We’d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at > Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 > Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New > York.  This is in keeping with our rotation of pain.  This puts us > about 10 days in front of the next IETF. > > > > The agenda will be open issues.  The chairs will send a status > of that prior to the meeting. > > > > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eliot > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > --------------C77122DEC2935DF65F12581A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/19/2020 9:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to the IETF meeting. Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two weeks. I would prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the meetings need to be longer -- and otherwise use the mailing list.

+1 on both of EKRs points.

Mike



-Ekr

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
Eliot,

I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall a message that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the two-week period around IETF109, although I can't find a reference at the moment. It might be worth double-checking with them, if you haven't already.

Cheers,


> On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> When last we left our heroes we were proposing to ‘set’em up and knock’em down’ in the issue tracker, where the process was that we would discuss things in email and then during meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate back in person.  We were thinking of a tempo of about every two weeks.
>
> We’d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York.  This is in keeping with our rotation of pain.  This puts us about 10 days in front of the next IETF.
>
> The agenda will be open issues.  The chairs will send a status of that prior to the meeting.
>
> Comments on this by Tuesday, please.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future


--------------C77122DEC2935DF65F12581A-- From nobody Mon Oct 19 20:36:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836CA3A10CE for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45ySzlZhEbZQ for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B68E3A10CD for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id j8so219174pjy.5 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=5vY6LgXQh0rfwGBxtnRDaAC7iAfqSe1GgHEQ0ZrZxeg=; b=bz79ZsswkdHwH1TZP04aP/cHUihozkfqyaer/AZx+/ZSKsbkbqG6TTOClCLKDAjDck cQYQmeTSkWa9Ny+ihnooL4KcbDZBBqZJro0p9BTY3d/ehzw2PyB1gSd8VrPx1sXVlmzq bQR4mcT4SaoaRh/s+7maQM60x8hdbNGZ1xxyhCx3oqkya1mqvFiLD9KyhtbHs1OcTzVn CbgMIrnadBmnIEuuawEZE2Axb6fesqApZMPuMS4Os5q+xzl6HzzAnvkGjqLLLJiiAqr4 GCvagjCxb8nVvj15EDukuqEj9KsMZ4NIOF5ue1x6TpqRgKN4m3A/wnZdgkQIKSf9LV8L gS+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=5vY6LgXQh0rfwGBxtnRDaAC7iAfqSe1GgHEQ0ZrZxeg=; b=AG8q1Ph5t+XhJ8eKI1oWI8n7XJIFMGK2jB9vXQRqcr6NAIHPqbLbEjOgwOViX17oXs lV9k4v1LYcM7ZMCvRyJCkMYVBhye34S34AT8uU/dnMdvlWf9/iBZmE51RZfN7/9O9UuR BTVjczRnynBf05EJsx48zslkNOVWxvw+X+4nsgSxnv6iZ1/ms11MAW6tzOMnCfNsdEo3 XKZT5xpu3GEnBPOqvrZGEbNd9eUAnmINiVz5q6Yc07ZB/rBDD0j/ACWjer3RAX6uz9qz xPdJT+PV7Uc738gECmOR1pKeT3B6rUAaQCaJKxxOfFC71fHyd5azWPzMpDGzlODytTRV lhcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BE5Eq+cqwt1+yCPZL7RbkWeDai8zQ+T2NjpgypuCr/dTL2lL7 EEAYaAiOyK0d1Lnmqcv5iUo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweqV67glBrkYg0PvyvtIMbT7kqmkFD4dy2+uJGxa5/tjBqpXikQSplcmC2cT5yA0+VcEJoCA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:23c5:: with SMTP id md5mr971741pjb.182.1603164974374; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:a4dc:ec38:3bbc:82ac? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:a4dc:ec38:3bbc:82ac]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d6sm249906pjr.51.2020.10.19.20.36.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Hinden Message-Id: <910721F7-67F3-46C4-8AA7-B48C79F25C10@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CC70D3A4-529B-462C-951B-EDE2DD898852"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:36:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8381391a-f642-96ff-e349-e59819b526b2@nthpermutation.com> Cc: Bob Hinden , rfced-future@iab.org To: Michael StJohns References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> <8381391a-f642-96ff-e349-e59819b526b2@nthpermutation.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:36:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CC70D3A4-529B-462C-951B-EDE2DD898852 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Oct 19, 2020, at 6:34 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > On 10/19/2020 9:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to the IETF meeting. = Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two weeks. I would = prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the meetings need to be longer = -- and otherwise use the mailing list. > +1 on both of EKRs points. +1 for me too. Bob >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> -Ekr >>=20 >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham = wrote: >> Eliot, >>=20 >> I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also recall a = message that the IESG was discouraging interim meetings in the two-week = period around IETF109, although I can't find a reference at the moment. = It might be worth double-checking with them, if you haven't already. >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >>=20 >> > On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear = wrote: >> > >> > Friends, >> > >> > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to =E2=80=98set=E2=80=99= em up and knock=E2=80=99em down=E2=80=99 in the issue tracker, where the = process was that we would discuss things in email and then during = meetings, confirm them in email, close what we can that way, and = otherwise iterate back in person. We were thinking of a tempo of about = every two weeks. >> > >> > We=E2=80=99d like to get that going, starting with a meeting at = Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 = Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 America/New York. = This is in keeping with our rotation of pain. This puts us about 10 = days in front of the next IETF. >> > >> > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a status of = that prior to the meeting. >> > >> > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Eliot >> > -- >> > Rfced-future mailing list >> > Rfced-future@iab.org >> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>=20 >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>=20 >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future --Apple-Mail=_CC70D3A4-529B-462C-951B-EDE2DD898852 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEm0rfRsOCoyamPexGrut0EXfnu6gFAl+OWywACgkQrut0EXfn u6ilxQgAvzhVIKkHKuVcwViNOK2PoJwSl3cgONc/rJQ2JVJR86zYK8QGDtErGmec gZq3UO3aUY9j+hA3nDhF/4a+0QiaLW/88zVWoCnNSFeRpbeTMStSvi6ayVGay4I3 O/DINmFRzpS8jEe3ZfzYOrd3m5gCLAfWv5vMwdt27CEeYcaI+2vv5ciqipZ5pc0X pjgZ3JPYJdEenK8Ym7BJVa+jU+Mq4tWCdaTiTDdtBrzwPSdZQff2o4L+M6lAK8Ae tv1k3GQvDZGzD1TsjlzHZxILhpp/QlnCHe2G8VLNCUporAXKYHJzfymXPDQiFTaV 6kNLO41K0WjsMdl/08rDt8V3C7w3Kw== =KEGB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_CC70D3A4-529B-462C-951B-EDE2DD898852-- From nobody Mon Oct 19 21:12:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1EA3A0A63 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNxXTZaDFjaC for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDE433A0A62 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1kUj0b-0001Ir-21; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:12:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:12:19 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Bob Hinden cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <910721F7-67F3-46C4-8AA7-B48C79F25C10@gmail.com> References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> <8381391a-f642-96ff-e349-e59819b526b2@nthpermutation.com> <910721F7-67F3-46C4-8AA7-B48C79F25C10@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 04:12:30 -0000 --On Monday, October 19, 2020 20:36 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: > > >> On Oct 19, 2020, at 6:34 PM, Michael StJohns >> wrote: >> >> On 10/19/2020 9:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> I share Mark's concerns about meetings close to the IETF >>> meeting. Also, I'm not enthusiastic about meetings every two >>> weeks. I would prefer to see every four weeks -- even if the >>> meetings need to be longer -- and otherwise use the mailing >>> list. >> +1 on both of EKRs points. > > +1 for me too. FWIW, agree. I am concerned that this is dragging out. We are now past the one-year point since Heather announced she was leaving only 2 1/2 months until we've been a full year without a "permanent" RSE or a permanent new structure. Much as I appreciate John Levine's efforts, that is not a good situation. To some degree we run that risk that taking too long may make some of our discussions irrelevant. I don't think holding interim meetings more frequently rather than depending more on the mailing list will help with that. Indeed, if I had to guess, it would be likely to slow up down. But I think we should all notice that the virtual clock is ticking and that one thing we don't seem to be doing is converging quickly. john > > Bob > > >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mark Nottingham >>> wrote: Eliot, >>> >>> I won't be able to make that, as I have a conflict. I also >>> recall a message that the IESG was discouraging interim >>> meetings in the two-week period around IETF109, although I >>> can't find a reference at the moment. It might be worth >>> double-checking with them, if you haven't already. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> > On 17 Oct 2020, at 2:36 am, Eliot Lear >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Friends, >>> > >>> > When last we left our heroes we were proposing to >>> > 'set'em up and knock'em down' in the issue >>> > tracker, where the process was that we would discuss >>> > things in email and then during meetings, confirm them in >>> > email, close what we can that way, and otherwise iterate >>> > back in person. We were thinking of a tempo of about >>> > every two weeks. >>> > >>> > We'd like to get that going, starting with a meeting at >>> > Thursday, November 5th, at 7:00am GMT, 8:00am CET, 18:00 >>> > Australia/Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland time, and 02:00 >>> > America/New York. This is in keeping with our rotation of >>> > pain. This puts us about 10 days in front of the next >>> > IETF. >>> > >>> > The agenda will be open issues. The chairs will send a >>> > status of that prior to the meeting. >>> > >>> > Comments on this by Tuesday, please. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Eliot >>> > -- >>> > Rfced-future mailing list >>> > Rfced-future@iab.org >>> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> -- >>> Rfced-future mailing list >>> Rfced-future@iab.org >>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > From nobody Tue Oct 20 02:47:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F963A103F for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yndt_OfDHweb for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932AA3A103D for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:47:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=154; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603187249; x=1604396849; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=kxGkGArohqqp4ho6pRc+j1PTOV7MMGOP8RQRIERIA/w=; b=cOs2wsx3OcIuN416t3kgjqNQD80Om7kifX6M8N8U6M5PmhQQWEa3KlFW TR04dHB7Ox3vCOcEQM6WgSPGOrvSrlOkzJjvLwKx+VZGwDnm5OcbwX7KT yfko2GumUqAosIOyZNDO4wNmpmQt7eutd60vcU9T4SgAX6w07xMziM5+3 U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CIBwBAsY5f/xbLJq1gHgEBCxIMQIU?= =?us-ascii?q?+ASAShGmJBYdznEsLAQEBDQEBLwQBAYRKAoIFJjgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQY?= =?us-ascii?q?EbYVthXMGI2YLGgImAgJXgz+Cfa5kdoEyimOBDiqNU4IAgTgMEIIfLj6EPU2?= =?us-ascii?q?CSjOCLAS3foJ0gxaXXQMfgwQBjzyPFLAIg14CBAYFAhWBayMqgS0zGggbFWU?= =?us-ascii?q?Bgj89EhkNnGg/A2gCBgEJAQEDCY5IAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,396,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="30434529" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Oct 2020 09:47:25 +0000 Received: from [10.61.223.71] ([10.61.223.71]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09K9lNdk023351 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:47:25 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:47:23 +0200 References: <1CFD2D83-EC77-42F6-91E3-572CE518FD6A@cisco.com> <7F235C43-8C8F-43AA-8622-9AD90891D32E@mnot.net> <8381391a-f642-96ff-e349-e59819b526b2@nthpermutation.com> <910721F7-67F3-46C4-8AA7-B48C79F25C10@gmail.com> To: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <1F8C5742-6CE4-4035-A5C1-78F663E7D16A@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.223.71, [10.61.223.71] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Proposing Interim Meeting for November 5th X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:47:31 -0000 Hi, I=E2=80=99m hearing hearing once per month. Thanks to everyone who = chimed in. We can adjust this schedule depending on experience. Eliot= From nobody Fri Oct 23 14:19:16 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@iab.org Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B663A11C7; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:15:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, The IAB X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.20.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <160348775254.5087.10242141118079852466@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:15:52 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] rfcefdp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 21:15:56 -0000 Dear Eliot Lear, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. rfcefdp Session 1 (2:00 requested) Thursday, 19 November 2020, Session III 1600-1800 Room Name: Room 2 size: 502 --------------------------------------------- iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/sessions/rfcefdp.ics Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: RFC Editor Future Development Area Name: Internet Architecture Board Session Requester: Eliot Lear Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: rum dispatch stir sipcore emu opsawg anima Technology Overlap: gendispatch People who must be present: Brian E. Carpenter Eliot Lear John R. Levine Michael StJohns Brian Rosen Martin Thomson Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Oct 26 00:28:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269323A19A3 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fo7DIO_v4as for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 603443A19A2 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:28:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5230; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603697329; x=1604906929; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=sRcqLS6+xcz2y4EESuKsPEK2UGdknvS3xdzE0t/R9dc=; b=Lkyyodhy1vgnyrZGxUFRhXkrWqDecVzwCo+54rr3IQJ5IzXjdJRlEUzI nr1yzG2YhUCVR/Jq8leag+zqz09/PeAeCwD4a+bhs/KDLTcFGpZ7jxP+S bCbWO24j6OEe9Jg5nCWwi7C74H2ac+mrAI9P0euIrNuu9j3BdriAo1a7i U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AzAwAoepZf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGCD4IqSSdVATIshDyJBYdoJpQLhjGBaQsBAQENAQEjDAQBAYR?= =?us-ascii?q?KAoIKJjgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVhDIVyAQEBAwEjVgULCwQOBioCAkk?= =?us-ascii?q?OGYMmAYJcIA+tW3aBMoQ+AYEYhG0GgTiNVIIAgTgMEIIfLj6BBAGBVwIDgSK?= =?us-ascii?q?DUTOCLASQCiSKXpx6gnSDFoVukXUDH6FehgGYMpFjg18CBAYFAhWBayOBVzM?= =?us-ascii?q?aCBsVOyoBgj4+EhkNWI1fg1mFFIVBAkADMAI2AgYBCQEBAwmOSAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,417,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30572400" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Oct 2020 07:28:45 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-101-216.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-101-216.cisco.com [10.61.101.216]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09Q7Sier019718 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:28:45 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44698FBA-9089-47A3-9E4A-8DDA52377E99" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:28:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <160348775254.5087.10242141118079852466@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: rfcefdp-chairs@ietf.org To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <160348775254.5087.10242141118079852466@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.101.216, dhcp-10-61-101-216.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] rfcefdp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:28:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_44698FBA-9089-47A3-9E4A-8DDA52377E99 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 As discussed, our agenda will be to go through the questions in the = issue tracker. I will put out a status shortly about where we are with = each of the first issues we=E2=80=99ve begun to talk about but may I = suggest that colleagues continue to address issues they see as = important. For a reminder, the list can be found at = https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues = . Start with Issue #10 (not yet closed, to be sure). Eliot > On 23 Oct 2020, at 23:15, IETF Secretariat wrote: >=20 > Dear Eliot Lear, >=20 > The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. > Below is the scheduled session information followed by > the original request.=20 >=20 >=20 > rfcefdp Session 1 (2:00 requested) > Thursday, 19 November 2020, Session III 1600-1800 > Room Name: Room 2 size: 502 > --------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 > iCalendar: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/sessions/rfcefdp.ics >=20 > Request Information: >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > Working Group Name: RFC Editor Future Development > Area Name: Internet Architecture Board > Session Requester: Eliot Lear >=20 >=20 > Number of Sessions: 1 > Length of Session(s): 2 Hours > Number of Attendees: 50 > Conflicts to Avoid:=20 > Chair Conflict: rum dispatch stir sipcore emu opsawg anima > Technology Overlap: gendispatch >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > People who must be present: > Brian E. Carpenter > Eliot Lear > John R. Levine > Michael StJohns > Brian Rosen > Martin Thomson >=20 > Resources Requested: >=20 > Special Requests: >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_44698FBA-9089-47A3-9E4A-8DDA52377E99 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
As discussed, our agenda will be to go through the = questions in the issue tracker.  I will put out a status shortly = about where we are with each of the first issues we=E2=80=99ve begun to = talk about but may I suggest that colleagues continue to address issues = they see as important.  For a reminder, the list can be found = at https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future/issues.
<= div>
Start with Issue #10 (not yet closed, to = be sure).

Eliot

On 23 Oct 2020, at = 23:15, IETF Secretariat <agenda@ietf.org> wrote:

Dear Eliot Lear,

The session(s) = that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the = scheduled session information followed by
the original = request.


=   rfcefdp Session 1 (2:00 requested)
=   Thursday, 19 November 2020, Session III 1600-1800
  Room Name: Room 2 size: 502
=   ---------------------------------------------


iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/sessions/rfcefdp.ics

Request Information:


---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: RFC Editor Future Development
Area Name: Internet Architecture Board
Session = Requester: Eliot Lear


Number = of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  2 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid:
Chair Conflict: rum dispatch stir sipcore emu opsawg anima
Technology Overlap: gendispatch





People who must be present:
Brian E. = Carpenter
Eliot Lear
John R. Levine
Michael StJohns
Brian Rosen
= Martin Thomson

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:

---------------------------------------------------------



= --Apple-Mail=_44698FBA-9089-47A3-9E4A-8DDA52377E99-- From nobody Tue Oct 27 06:10:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946AB3A091C for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qusdP_zGrPYO for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B076E3A093D for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:10:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=39160; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603804224; x=1605013824; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=GMn5FMmngxLZ7ZnzsiPINvM/OUY2JgRNunXH8J8uMPo=; b=J9HVuThV+y93JB4jmSUVRelMzlJD6Nv/4dXXHPP418Gme7WG62H7xaMT TIkcdQKMPk3CNaOJ28L8fpv5e7AkYjRV8R+ysSiRwhKE1zDXM/gGBvENj vI/i/IUowGoeVE7d2yiyufYhgCE8+3v0Ol3bcdISJMxHF1gAQ41sPZqY5 A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DMBQB7G5hf/xbLJq1ghXJVASAShGi?= =?us-ascii?q?JBYdojxKLUIFpCwEBAQ0BAScIBAEBhlEmOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthWE?= =?us-ascii?q?MhhxIYQEJAoQYAYJ8D5gVjhl2gTKFV4RyBoE4jVSCAIERJwwQgiABg0YCAhe?= =?us-ascii?q?BDBGDQDOCLASQNYpXnHqCdQSDE4VvkXYDFgmDF4dwgh2UOp41kWSDXwIEBgU?= =?us-ascii?q?CFYFrI4EmGwEOBzMaCBsVOyoBgj89EhkNjisXg06KV0ADaAIGAQkBAQMJjAK?= =?us-ascii?q?CRgEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,424,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30608421" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Oct 2020 13:10:20 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5230.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp5230.cisco.com [10.61.84.109]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09RDAJt9021235 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:10:20 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6317CB58-27DD-49D5-900A-D0588FF0F151" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:10:19 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.84.109, ams3-vpn-dhcp5230.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:10:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6317CB58-27DD-49D5-900A-D0588FF0F151 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear colleagues: In preparation for the IETF meeting, here is a list of the issues that = we have before us. I=E2=80=99ve attempted to summarize how I see the = state of issues. Feel free to correct me. The goal is to simply find = ways to advance topics. Apart from those clearly labeled = =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D nothing else has rough consensus. This again was based on the list that Brian prepared some time ago: 4 LLC legally & finanicially responsible for all contracts = Consensus = =20 5 RFC production and publishing are service contract(s). = Consensus = 6 Streams have content control. = Consensus = 7 A separate body debates strategy. = Consensus = 8 This body must include stream representatives. = Consensus = 9 Strategy body meetings are public = Consensus = =20 We will start on these below on the F2F: 10 Is there a figurehead and thought leader of some kind? = In Discussion = We=E2=80=99ve had a lot of discussion around whether the person is a = =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D, where the term isn=E2=80=99t entirely = commonly understood. It was a struggle for some to answer. Brian = proposed that we continue with two separate questions: - do we need a person with specialized expertise? My impression is that most people believe this to be the case. Please tell me if you think I am wrong, given this: - does that person act as a thought leader? My impression is that there are still significant concerns about what = this means. 11 If there is a figurehead, is this person a paid expert in = technical publishing? = In Discussion = That is- if we have anyone 1]. Is the person paid? 2]. Does the person have expertise in technical publishing? I think the big question that a small number of people have is about = [1]. 12 Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE). = In Discussion = There is a split within the group over this topic. Some people have = made clear that they prefer an advisor, and others believe the role = should be that of an executive editor, where the latter makes decisions. = We=E2=80=99ve had a bit of a discussion about what decisions would be = made. What, for instance, could the RPC management reasonably decide? = What authority and expertise might they lack? Here we had a = contribution from the RPC that described some of their activities. One possible resolution is that the expert exercises moral authority =E2=80= =93 as experts do =E2=80=93 and provides guidance when asked by the RPC = within the existing framework. If the existing framework is found to be = wanting, the advisor might point this out to strategy body. It is then = up to them to resolve through whatever processes they have. They might = seek guidance from the advisor to resolve issues. Tell me if you think this is unacceptable. 13 Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? = In Discussion = This amounts to whether there is an open working group or an = appointed/elected body. =20 14 Who chairs the strategic body? = In Discussion = There are three choices that have been proposed: Someones appointed by the IAB Someones appointed by the ISOC The RSE and ISE. This issue is obviously linked to how the body is composed. My = suggestion is that this issue take a back seat for the moment. 15 Who makes final decisions on strategy? = In Discussion = This issue and issues 13 and 14 are clearly linked. We should spend = some time discussing this. 16 Who handles oversight/appeals? = In Discussion = There are three choices here: IAB ISOC BoT Matters stop at the RSE/RSEB 17 Single contract for REP vs separate contracts for production = (RPC) & publication. = In Discussion = I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and propose to defer = it for now. 18 Contract monitor(s) outside LLC? = In Discussion = In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this seems to me = a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m sure he will = correct me. 19 Membership definition (RSEB model) = In Discussion = If there is a limited membership for a decision-making body, who are = those people? This is obviously linked to Issue 13. 20 Decider for hiring RSA/RSE? = In Discussion = Additional discussion required here. 21 Search committee for hiring RSA/RSE? = In Discussion = Additional discussion required here. 22 Is there a new, separate Editorial Stream? = In Discussion = I would like to know if anyone objects to an editorial stream coming = into being? 23 What is strategic (pragmatic definition needed)? = In Discussion = Text needed = This ties to what decisions the RPC can make versus what decisions are = to be left to the strategic body or RSE if that role is an executive. 24 What is the name of the role? = In Discussion = Issue 24 is very much tied to issues 10 and 12, and at least several = people like the term =E2=80=9Cadvisor=E2=80=9D. But see Issue 12 above. Do I have this about right? Please feel free to correct, contradict, = berate, bludgeon, or even agree! Eliot= --Apple-Mail=_6317CB58-27DD-49D5-900A-D0588FF0F151 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Dear colleagues:

In preparation for the IETF meeting, here is a list of the = issues that we have before us.  I=E2=80=99ve attempted to summarize = how I see the state of issues.  Feel free to correct me.  The = goal is to simply find ways to advance topics.  Apart from those = clearly labeled =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D nothing else has rough = consensus.

This = again was based on the list that Brian prepared some time ago:

4 LLC = legally & finanicially responsible for all contracts Consensus 
5 RFC = production and publishing are service contract(s). Consensus
6 Streams = have content control. Consensus
7 A = separate body debates strategy. Consensus
8 This body = must include stream representatives. Consensus
9 Strategy = body meetings are public Consensus       =  

We will start on these below on the F2F:

10 Is there = a figurehead and thought leader of some kind? In Discussion

We=E2=80=99ve had a lot of discussion around whether the = person is a =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D, where the term isn=E2=80=99t= entirely commonly understood.  It was a struggle for some to = answer.  Brian proposed that we continue with two separate = questions:

- do we need a = person with specialized expertise?

My impression is that most people believe this to be the = case.

Please tell me = if you think I am wrong, given this:

- does that person act as a thought = leader?

My impression = is that there are still significant concerns about what this = means.


11 If there = is a figurehead, is this person a paid expert in technical = publishing? In Discussion

That is- if we have anyone

1]. Is the person paid?
2]. Does the person have expertise in technical = publishing?

I think the = big question that a small number of people have is about [1].


12 = Is the = expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE). In Discussion

There is a split within the group over this topic.  Some = people have made clear that they prefer an advisor, and others believe = the role should be that of an executive editor, where the latter makes = decisions.  We=E2=80=99ve had a bit of a discussion about what = decisions would be made.  What, for instance, could the RPC = management reasonably decide?  What authority and expertise might = they lack?  Here we had a contribution from the RPC that described = some of their activities.

One possible resolution is that the expert exercises moral = authority =E2=80=93 as experts do =E2=80=93 and provides guidance when = asked by the RPC within the existing framework.  If the existing = framework is found to be wanting, the advisor might point this out to = strategy body.  It is then up to them to resolve through whatever = processes they have.  They might seek guidance from the advisor to = resolve issues.

Tell me if you = think this is unacceptable.

13 Is = decision making in the strategy body is open to all? In Discussion


This amounts to whether there is an open working group or an = appointed/elected body.  

14 Who = chairs the strategic body? In Discussion

There are three choices that have been proposed:
  • Someones appointed by the IAB
  • Someones = appointed by the ISOC
  • The RSE and ISE.

This issue is obviously = linked to how the body is composed.  My suggestion is that this = issue take a back seat for the moment.

15 Who = makes final decisions on strategy? In Discussion

This issue and issues 13 and 14 are clearly linked.  We = should spend some time discussing this.

16 = Who = handles oversight/appeals? In Discussion

There are three choices here:

  • IAB
  • ISOC BoT
  • Matters stop at the = RSE/RSEB


17 Single = contract for REP vs separate contracts for production (RPC) & = publication. In Discussion

I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and = propose to defer it for now.

18 = Contract = monitor(s) outside LLC? In Discussion

In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this = seems to me a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m = sure he will correct me.

19 Membership= definition (RSEB model) In Discussion

If there is a limited membership for a decision-making body, = who are those people?  This is obviously linked to Issue = 13.


20 Decider = for hiring RSA/RSE? In Discussion

Additional discussion required here.

21 Search = committee for hiring RSA/RSE? In Discussion

Additional discussion required here.

22 Is there = a new, separate Editorial Stream? In Discussion

I would like to know if anyone objects to an editorial stream = coming into being?

23 What is = strategic (pragmatic definition needed)? In Discussion Text needed

This ties to what decisions the RPC can make versus what = decisions are to be left to the strategic body or RSE if that role is an = executive.

24 What is = the name of the role? In Discussion

Issue 24 is very much tied to issues 10 and 12, and at least = several people like the term =E2=80=9Cadvisor=E2=80=9D.  But see = Issue 12 above.

Do I have this = about right?  Please feel free to correct, contradict, berate, = bludgeon, or even agree!

Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_6317CB58-27DD-49D5-900A-D0588FF0F151-- From nobody Tue Oct 27 11:29:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBA33A0E58; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BJExoZjuaQDw; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B91AC3A0E17; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:28:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jay Daley Message-Id: <7B37D98B-9EC9-47C5-BB72-FC594045D77A@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F4F6E8AB-B37E-4252-9309-EFE2814E0780" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:28:37 +1300 In-Reply-To: Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Eliot Lear References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:29:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F4F6E8AB-B37E-4252-9309-EFE2814E0780 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks Eliot > On 28/10/2020, at 2:10 AM, Eliot Lear = wrote: >=20 > 17 Single contract for REP vs separate contracts for production = (RPC) & publication. = In Discussion = >=20 > I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and propose to = defer it for now. >=20 > 18 Contract monitor(s) outside LLC? = In Discussion = >=20 > In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this seems to = me a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m sure he = will correct me. I think both of the above are for the LLC to decide and the community = focus could be on what it expects from each as that is unclear in the = current setup and so there is no precedent to follow. Jay --=20 Jay Daley IETF Executive Director jay@ietf.org --Apple-Mail=_F4F6E8AB-B37E-4252-9309-EFE2814E0780 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Thanks Eliot

On 28/10/2020, at 2:10 AM, = Eliot Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

17 Single = contract for REP vs separate contracts for production (RPC) & = publication. In Discussion

I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and = propose to defer it for now.

18 = Contract = monitor(s) outside LLC? In Discussion

In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this = seems to me a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m = sure he will correct = me.

I think both of the above are for the LLC to = decide and the community focus could be on what it expects from each as = that is unclear in the current setup and so there is no precedent to = follow.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF = Executive Director
jay@ietf.org

= --Apple-Mail=_F4F6E8AB-B37E-4252-9309-EFE2814E0780-- From nobody Fri Oct 30 12:50:16 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8719A3A11D8; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:50:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.893 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yR_DMBYrNMRs; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B25313A11D9; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09UJo61K006601; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:06 GMT Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84842203D; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B23222203B; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (81-174-211-216.pth-as4.dial.plus.net [81.174.211.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09UJo4kK016308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:04 GMT Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Eliot Lear'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:03 -0000 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <08ff01d6aef5$dc784b60$9568e220$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0900_01D6AEF5.DC7A9550" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHt2uELLDUY6Bzy2WwrqTtFBgL+oqmCLQpw Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 81.174.211.216 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25758.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.078-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--2.078-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25758.002 X-TMASE-Result: 10--2.077900-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HQYVVRq48Rw7iuZ/mdYYtoSQL+cyF7OspZkFxNdtI07HH3VmZm9hfRty 3owTOtr+eoT8ghp9T7/lCjTeYR3AAam9/6ObPjnDbIggPfvFwcqp2/aPjF9JKCNI5myMV0Wrrv8 ODKhO8vRHrI6KnX3XG7lH8bL998dvB4Id7CiQcz87sEw6V/IotIJmvCNWNxbGdKznysZuuFJr/5 TfT1lzV8yB+MYaW/KQN19PjPJahlJ9iuvWn3J8KmbclF+g8j2xIta53KBVoI4aArPy7J2TRcEXK khDfeUkmwl9ChccOjtTXKTX+wmKyTsgUw68UQrYsrDwfHQQaK05sbSAlwpFDi6wJgmjdFrieSP8 /IpjmQBiKWkqr/sldxlJRfzNw8afUb4EdIZGxuBayaoU89Fh9miSesVS+rmqHDszucd12CSBM2s 3vIRmJoYQByQ8Qa5fzniFfjFXqM5v+B0owAW3BlrXKFPCbXO5NrzAfV3mWQWtPYBSOcx1UMQv2n QnPbqYZKCyFRIOMWWMcMdBUgYJjU5hnW7nLCaJeNdSiOj27sJZmrH7AMVEWpidUhk383M9tJAno BNoi85s5JY+n6owtMOYvqsF7ngCsb2x5zTl2EFKDy5+nmfdPqjZ4vqVgtbFE4QcsqWOMJEOjHEo V3dzag40uo0FDlwN2bpX2XJNwqGR18iZ4r3DUbV5fSMRD1zqKXRoJDhFIVKueJMcfKVYTMEeVtd bAgViifsNgXDdrIY9eqMcrrvYmS+w46aA6jWZr2qyzQyP1NNaTW107FjPHABEAy7Pj7gVs6d8U6 vh/n1Ro7goX8d+1/RR4zaLaXcQMwDRsJ0tggSbKItl61J/yZUdXE/WGn0FSlnU38LCY8sb3MWYE xvnbq0hbOeGOMG1/nnwJ52QYi//xNK7US28WRfbuRKBf9Y084YFMKgCteb3R1McO8MpU7BUjCFa fW05iVLZEsP3OeneAJ4OGOeEJLdsB4pZn/SsGGnUZgNt//vKkAKZyZUhF/WlN9buc4OmB93CClK 96oNGVwxJF2Jd3xsQu+uQptSL8LGzeCulr483/ofrsjqC7yLByWzk8IZAnyqGyhbT+qJK3epX+C xclw== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 19:50:14 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0900_01D6AEF5.DC7A9550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eliot, =20 Thanks for this summary. It=E2=80=99s helpful and prompts me to some = work. =20 The list of issues is =E2=80=9Csomewhat busy=E2=80=9D and so it has been = hard to engage except dipping in and out. =20 If I=E2=80=99m picky, #7 uses the word =E2=80=9Cdebate=E2=80=9D. Well, = you know, anyone can debate anything :-Z Is the intention: a. Debates of strategy will be directed to a separate body b. A separate body will resolve issues of strategy And presumably, this forward references #9 =20 There are a lot of issues =E2=80=9CIn Discussion=E2=80=9D. Would it be = sensible to try not to discuss them all at once? Mark some as = =E2=80=9CIn Discussion=E2=80=9D and some as =E2=80=9CPending = Discussion=E2=80=9D? =20 #10 You have captured my feelings on this. Can we please not use = =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D: notwithstanding dictionary = definitions, there is too much baggage associated. If someone who is = inspired by this term would like to write out what they mean, then we = can get meaningful debate on what we actually want.=20 =20 #10 and #11 TBH, I also don=E2=80=99t like =E2=80=9Cfigurehead=E2=80=9D for its = connotations of =E2=80=9Csomeone who actually has no power, but is put = up to deliver a message=E2=80=9D: again, let=E2=80=99s stop using = buzzwords and say what we mean. Are we hiding from saying = =E2=80=9Cperson in authority=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cleader=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9Cspokesperson=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cchairperson=E2=80=9D? =20 #11.1 I must have missed the arguments against payment. I wonder whether = someone would mind making a precis. =20 #11.2 seems already answered by #10.1 =20 #12 I think your conclusion is reasonable, but=E2=80=A6 a. That list of tasks really could do with reaching consensus because it = is necessary to the definition of the role b. I might be wrong, but if the RPC is asked to resolve a certain class = of issues, they might (reasonably?) say that this lies outside their = current contract =20 #13 might be better asked in terms of: a. Participation (we know the meetings are public [see #9], but not = whether participation is open) b. Decision-making by all participants or by core group It might help to separate these questions. The latter hides the whole = issue of how such a group might be formed. In fact, perhaps #13,14,15,19 need to be refactored as: Who chairs the discussions and any decision-making, and how is that = person appointed? Who can participate in the discussions? If open participation, are decisions made by rough consensus of all = participants? If closed participation, how is the group appointed? =20 #16 I think issues of appeal can only be considered after questions of = appointment. =20 #17 Sounds like a strategic question that could be answered by a = strategy body =20 #18 If the contract is written well enough, then it doesn=E2=80=99t much = matter who monitors it =20 #20,21 Yeah. Defer until we know what we are hiring. =20 #22 No objection to the creation of new streams, but there really must = be a clear definition of the stream (noting that if the stream does not = have IETF consensus and/or IESG/IAB approval then it might make sense to = publish in the Independent Stream and have done with it).=20 =20 #23 Oh dear =E2=98=B9 We got this far down the list with loads of = discussion of the =E2=80=9Cstrategy body=E2=80=9D, and we don=E2=80=99t = know where to draw the line. =20 #24 Definitely the last thing we should do when building this shed is = decide on the paint colour.=20 =20 Thanks for the leadership. Adrian =20 From: Rfced-future On Behalf Of Eliot = Lear Sent: 27 October 2020 13:10 To: rfced-future@iab.org Subject: [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions =20 Dear colleagues: =20 In preparation for the IETF meeting, here is a list of the issues that = we have before us. I=E2=80=99ve attempted to summarize how I see the = state of issues. Feel free to correct me. The goal is to simply find = ways to advance topics. Apart from those clearly labeled = =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D nothing else has rough consensus. =20 This again was based on the list that Brian prepared some time ago: =20 4 LLC legally = & finanicially = responsible for all contracts = Consensus=20 5 RFC production and publishing are service contract(s). = = Consensus 6 Streams have content control. = = Consensus 7 A separate body debates strategy. = = Consensus 8 This body must include stream representatives. = = Consensus 9 Strategy body meetings are public = = Consensus =20 =20 We will start on these below on the F2F: =20 10 Is there a figurehead and thought leader of some kind? = = In Discussion =20 We=E2=80=99ve had a lot of discussion around whether the person is a = =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D, where the term isn=E2=80=99t entirely = commonly understood. It was a struggle for some to answer. Brian = proposed that we continue with two separate questions: =20 - do we need a person with specialized expertise? =20 My impression is that most people believe this to be the case. =20 Please tell me if you think I am wrong, given this: - does that person act as a thought leader? =20 My impression is that there are still significant concerns about what = this means. =20 =20 11 If there is a figurehead, is this person a paid expert in = technical publishing? = = In Discussion =20 That is- if we have anyone =20 1]. Is the person paid? 2]. Does the person have expertise in technical publishing? =20 I think the big question that a small number of people have is about = [1]. =20 =20 12 Is the expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE). = = In Discussion =20 There is a split within the group over this topic. Some people have = made clear that they prefer an advisor, and others believe the role = should be that of an executive editor, where the latter makes decisions. = We=E2=80=99ve had a bit of a discussion about what decisions would be = made. What, for instance, could the RPC management reasonably decide? = What authority and expertise might they lack? Here we had a = contribution from the RPC that described some of their activities. =20 One possible resolution is that the expert exercises moral authority = =E2=80=93 as experts do =E2=80=93 and provides guidance when asked by = the RPC within the existing framework. If the existing framework is = found to be wanting, the advisor might point this out to strategy body. = It is then up to them to resolve through whatever processes they have. = They might seek guidance from the advisor to resolve issues. =20 Tell me if you think this is unacceptable. =20 13 Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? = = In Discussion =20 =20 This amounts to whether there is an open working group or an = appointed/elected body. =20 =20 14 Who chairs the strategic body? = = In Discussion =20 There are three choices that have been proposed: * Someones appointed by the IAB * Someones appointed by the ISOC * The RSE and ISE. =20 This issue is obviously linked to how the body is composed. My = suggestion is that this issue take a back seat for the moment. =20 15 Who makes final decisions on strategy? = = In Discussion =20 This issue and issues 13 and 14 are clearly linked. We should spend = some time discussing this. =20 16 Who handles oversight/appeals? = = In Discussion =20 There are three choices here: =20 * IAB * ISOC BoT * Matters stop at the RSE/RSEB =20 =20 17 Single contract for REP vs separate contracts for production = (RPC) & = publication. = In Discussion =20 I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and propose to defer = it for now. =20 18 Contract monitor(s) outside LLC? = = In Discussion =20 In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this seems to me = a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m sure he will = correct me. =20 19 Membership definition (RSEB model) = = In Discussion =20 If there is a limited membership for a decision-making body, who are = those people? This is obviously linked to Issue 13. =20 =20 20 Decider for hiring RSA/RSE? = = In Discussion =20 Additional discussion required here. =20 21 Search committee for hiring RSA/RSE? = = In Discussion =20 Additional discussion required here. =20 22 Is there a new, separate Editorial Stream? = = In Discussion =20 I would like to know if anyone objects to an editorial stream coming = into being? =20 23 What is strategic (pragmatic definition needed)? = = In Discussion = Text needed =20 This ties to what decisions the RPC can make versus what decisions are = to be left to the strategic body or RSE if that role is an executive. =20 24 What is the name of the role? = = In Discussion =20 Issue 24 is very much tied to issues 10 and 12, and at least several = people like the term =E2=80=9Cadvisor=E2=80=9D. But see Issue 12 above. =20 Do I have this about right? Please feel free to correct, contradict, = berate, bludgeon, or even agree! =20 Eliot ------=_NextPart_000_0900_01D6AEF5.DC7A9550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Eliot,

 

Thanks for = this summary. It=E2=80=99s helpful and prompts me to some = work.

 

The list of = issues is =E2=80=9Csomewhat busy=E2=80=9D and so it has been hard to = engage except dipping in and out.

 

If = I=E2=80=99m picky, #7 uses the word =E2=80=9Cdebate=E2=80=9D. Well, you = know, anyone can debate anything :-Z Is the = intention:

  1. Debates of strategy will be = directed to a separate body
  2. A separate body will = resolve issues of strategy

And = presumably, this forward references #9

 

There are a = lot of issues =E2=80=9CIn Discussion=E2=80=9D. Would it be sensible to = try not to discuss them all at once? Mark some as =E2=80=9CIn = Discussion=E2=80=9D and some as =E2=80=9CPending = Discussion=E2=80=9D?

 

#10 You = have captured my feelings on this. Can we please not use = =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D: notwithstanding dictionary = definitions, there is too much baggage associated. If someone who is = inspired by this term would like to write out what they mean, then we = can get meaningful debate on what we actually want. =

 

#10 and = #11

TBH, I also don=E2=80=99t like = =E2=80=9Cfigurehead=E2=80=9D for its connotations of =E2=80=9Csomeone = who actually has no power, but is put up to deliver a message=E2=80=9D: = again, let=E2=80=99s stop using buzzwords and say what we mean. Are we = hiding from saying =E2=80=9Cperson in authority=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9Cleader=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cspokesperson=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9Cchairperson=E2=80=9D?

 

#11.1 I = must have missed the arguments against payment. I wonder whether someone = would mind making a precis.

 

#11.2 seems = already answered by #10.1

 

#12 I think = your conclusion is reasonable, but=E2=80=A6

  1. That list of tasks really could do = with reaching consensus because it is necessary to the definition of the = role
  2. I might be wrong, but if the RPC is = asked to resolve a certain class of issues, they might (reasonably?) say = that this lies outside their current = contract

 

#13 might = be better asked in terms of:

  1. Participation (we know the meetings = are public [see #9], but not whether participation is = open)
  2. Decision-making by all participants = or by core group

It might help to separate these = questions. The latter hides the whole issue of how such a group might be = formed.

In fact, perhaps #13,14,15,19 need = to be refactored as:

Who chairs the discussions and any = decision-making, and how is that person = appointed?

Who can participate in the = discussions?

If open participation, are = decisions made by rough consensus of all = participants?

If closed participation, how is the = group appointed?

 

#16 I think = issues of appeal can only be considered after questions of = appointment.

 

#17 Sounds = like a strategic question that could be answered by a strategy = body

 

#18 If the = contract is written well enough, then it doesn=E2=80=99t much matter who = monitors it

 

#20,21 = Yeah. Defer until we know what we are hiring.

 

#22 No = objection to the creation of new streams, but there really must be a = clear definition of the stream (noting that if the stream does not have = IETF consensus and/or IESG/IAB approval then it might make sense to = publish in the Independent Stream and have done with it). =

 

#23 Oh dear = =E2=98=B9 We got this far down the list with = loads of discussion of the =E2=80=9Cstrategy body=E2=80=9D, and we = don=E2=80=99t know where to draw the line.

 

#24 = Definitely the last thing we should do when building this shed is decide = on the paint colour.

 

Thanks for = the leadership.

Adrian

 

From: Rfced-future = <rfced-future-bounces@iab.org> On Behalf Of Eliot = Lear
Sent: 27 October 2020 13:10
To: = rfced-future@iab.org
Subject: [Rfced-future] Status of our = discussions

 

Dear = colleagues:

 

In preparation for the IETF meeting, here is a list of = the issues that we have before us.  I=E2=80=99ve attempted to = summarize how I see the state of issues.  Feel free to correct me. =  The goal is to simply find ways to advance topics.  Apart = from those clearly labeled =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D nothing else has = rough consensus.

 

This again was based on the list that Brian prepared = some time ago:

 

4=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 LLC = legally & finanicially responsible for all contracts Consensus 

5=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 RFC = production and publishing are service contract(s). Consensus=

6=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Streams = have content control. Consensus=

7=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 A = separate body debates strategy. Consensus=

8=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 This body = must include stream representatives. Consensus=

9=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Strategy = body meetings are public Consensus  =      

 

We will start = on these below on the = F2F:

 

10=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Is there = a figurehead and thought leader of some kind? In = Discussion

 

We=E2=80=99ve had a lot of discussion around whether = the person is a =E2=80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D, where the term = isn=E2=80=99t entirely commonly understood.  It was a struggle for = some to answer.  Brian proposed that we continue with two separate = questions:

 

- = do we need a person with specialized = expertise?

 

My impression is that most people believe this to be = the case.

 

Please tell me if you think I am wrong, given = this:


- does that = person act as a thought leader?

 

My impression is that there are still significant = concerns about what this means.

 

 

 

That is- if we have anyone

 

1]. Is the person paid?

2]. Does the person have expertise in technical = publishing?

 

I = think the big question that a small number of people have is about = [1].

 

 

12=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Is the = expert an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE). In = Discussion

 

There is a split within the group over this topic. =  Some people have made clear that they prefer an advisor, and = others believe the role should be that of an executive editor, where the = latter makes decisions.  We=E2=80=99ve had a bit of a discussion = about what decisions would be made.  What, for instance, could the = RPC management reasonably decide?  What authority and expertise = might they lack?  Here we had a contribution from the RPC that = described some of their activities.

 

One possible resolution is that the expert exercises = moral authority =E2=80=93 as experts do =E2=80=93 and provides guidance = when asked by the RPC within the existing framework.  If the = existing framework is found to be wanting, the advisor might point this = out to strategy body.  It is then up to them to resolve through = whatever processes they have.  They might seek guidance from the = advisor to resolve issues.

 

Tell me if you think this is = unacceptable.

 

13=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Is = decision making in the strategy body is open to all? In = Discussion

 

 

This amounts to whether there is an open working group = or an appointed/elected body.  

 

14=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Who = chairs the strategic body? In = Discussion

 

There are three choices that have been = proposed:

  • Someones appointed by the IAB
  • Someones appointed by the ISOC
  • The RSE and ISE.

 

This issue is obviously linked to how the body is = composed.  My suggestion is that this issue take a back seat for = the moment.

 

15=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Who = makes final decisions on strategy? In = Discussion

 

This issue and issues 13 and 14 are clearly linked. =  We should spend some time discussing = this.

 

16=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Who = handles oversight/appeals? In = Discussion

 

There are three choices = here:

 

  • IAB
  • ISOC BoT
  • Matters stop at the RSE/RSEB

 

 

 

I = wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and propose to defer = it for now.

 

18=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Contract = monitor(s) outside LLC? In = Discussion

 

In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, = and this seems to me a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but = I=E2=80=99m sure he will correct me.

 

19=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Membershi= p definition (RSEB model) In = Discussion

 

If there is a limited membership for a decision-making = body, who are those people?  This is obviously linked to Issue = 13.

 

 

20=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Decider = for hiring RSA/RSE? In = Discussion

 

Additional discussion required = here.

 

21=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Search = committee for hiring RSA/RSE? In = Discussion

 

Additional discussion required = here.

 

22=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Is there = a new, separate Editorial Stream? In = Discussion

 

I = would like to know if anyone objects to an editorial stream coming into = being?

 

23=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 What is = strategic (pragmatic definition needed)? In = Discussion Text = needed

 

This ties to what decisions the RPC can make versus = what decisions are to be left to the strategic body or RSE if that role = is an executive.

 

24=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 What is = the name of the role? In = Discussion

<= div>

 

Issue 24 is very much tied to issues 10 and 12, and at = least several people like the term =E2=80=9Cadvisor=E2=80=9D.  But = see Issue 12 above.

 

Do I have this about right?  Please feel free to = correct, contradict, berate, bludgeon, or even = agree!

 

Eliot

------=_NextPart_000_0900_01D6AEF5.DC7A9550-- From nobody Fri Oct 30 13:42:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F031E3A122C for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QTcQx58mIdEQ for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 548C03A122A for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id z24so6205326pgk.3 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uuvBjpxyJOxWjkZFvXIY+/KD5sMVeWuM3+5pSH9Fas0=; b=Lxz44JPqTNzOhmFfA//cUb3iavn+MlyLXX/Md49YTA6EswDLAB7+BEPNoeITx8EtgK nAY07TLp1KFzPBbGEnPNpubtEe12kJSPCOnhALXfrSuHeSxyWexP2oouf+wjpGgx3PrI tZvxUk37dDF5gWwuSVqPnxyWdP6DMuQRxZEROHdCLzkGsV8BKcOXlvQv54CJ7YK6TJux XIAiwQ81eka8Yys4TT7pxVGOsZTVAZH5TmKlDgd/afL2e6HqDxeIijTX5BRmy4Ksi1Wr itgyr8ZkMztQ5Y9waLwvgpgK8E5uRXmeux29TmemqfyCs9RsoXA6aS/a3efmLdEHQ8Y2 +SCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uuvBjpxyJOxWjkZFvXIY+/KD5sMVeWuM3+5pSH9Fas0=; b=k8/QDq9T/txPj6dZBp6ZR5LAqKjEZTXWosOX6K6HH4F2rwMJeSLkN1S7A7GAlcbIyf 6Q3DdApd1pI+8dK2GFp3IkozyivuGbfnT4E2gxKToi9f87md+D++gQCG1l3KfJTbFQNS 07wvlMNXf1/xCbdNrSumxFc/M0OOPDwKyKW2/tdCEWAE+dxUr+LMmHbqTKwDJT0NWPTf ci3drZkKto0UgvxtE7ZJpllRwKQSm99xPzx0c1rrxUD9ol7DWJgT5Kde7cGFd3bwSaS2 0fXAuJJiQjlKtAIEaHZv0grSR28G1FNZ5WiQcsDgfN0SA5z1ORS+tqOxxD7MS4BBzzYI RQlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53132HpaR1dUERBxaJT8kRmBVs+kTL2Cow6rYY/N2ideqLDhwG0K YEjjVzMgwa87wLMx5aieriZtReD5a5I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXSgxqSnkZf4bQzQUTrYqeMpmkxGaVCcdYnW9ThlIhgESuVWm1laTgbCo2s2caLyf11OCHdg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:698:: with SMTP id m24mr5104588pjz.154.1604090517127; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id my14sm3136863pjb.2.2020.10.30.13.41.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:56 -0700 (PDT) To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Eliot Lear' , rfced-future@iab.org References: <08ff01d6aef5$dc784b60$9568e220$@olddog.co.uk> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:41:51 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <08ff01d6aef5$dc784b60$9568e220$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 20:42:01 -0000 On 31-Oct-20 08:50, Adrian Farrel wrote: =2E.. > #10 You have captured my feelings on this. Can we please not use =E2=80= =9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D: notwithstanding dictionary definitions, there= is too much baggage associated. If someone who is inspired by this term = would like to write out what they mean, then we can get meaningful debate= on what we actually want. Inspired? Me? No, I'm not even passionate about thought leadership. I int= roduced because I thought it was a self-explanatory term, but apparently = it isn't, so let's drop it. =20 > #10 and #11 >=20 > TBH, I also don=E2=80=99t like =E2=80=9Cfigurehead=E2=80=9D for its con= notations of =E2=80=9Csomeone who actually has no power, but is put up to= deliver a message=E2=80=9D Ditto. > :again, let=E2=80=99s stop using buzzwords and say what we mean. Are we= hiding from saying =E2=80=9Cperson in authority=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Clea= der=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cspokesperson=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cchairperson=E2= =80=9D? There is no doubt in my mind that the currently defined RFC Series Editor= role has authority, and is expected to act as a leader, spokesperson, an= d chair when necessary. Two of the models on the table (mine and Martin's= ) would remove that role and split things up. Mike's model would retain t= hat role. I think issues 10, 11 and 12 were trying to resolve that tussle= =2E Maybe they should be rephrased, but we can't duck the question. Regards Brian > #11.1 I must have missed the arguments against payment. I wonder whethe= r someone would mind making a precis. >=20 > #11.2 seems already answered by #10.1 >=20 > #12 I think your conclusion is reasonable, but=E2=80=A6 >=20 > 1. That list of tasks really could do with reaching consensus because = it is necessary to the definition of the role > 2. I might be wrong, but if the RPC is asked to resolve a certain clas= s of issues, they might (reasonably?) say that this lies outside their cu= rrent contract >=20 > #13 might be better asked in terms of: >=20 > 1. Participation (we know the meetings are public [see #9], but not wh= ether participation is open) > 2. Decision-making by all participants or by core group >=20 > It might help to separate these questions. The latter hides the whole i= ssue of how such a group might be formed. > In fact, perhaps #13,14,15,19 need to be refactored as: > Who chairs the discussions and any decision-making, and how is that per= son appointed? > Who can participate in the discussions? > If open participation, are decisions made by rough consensus of all par= ticipants? > If closed participation, how is the group appointed? >=20 > #16 I think issues of appeal can only be considered after questions of = appointment. >=20 > #17 Sounds like a strategic question that could be answered by a strate= gy body >=20 > #18 If the contract is written well enough, then it doesn=E2=80=99t muc= h matter who monitors it >=20 > #20,21 Yeah. Defer until we know what we are hiring. >=20 > #22 No objection to the creation of new streams, but there really must = be a clear definition of the stream (noting that if the stream does not h= ave IETF consensus and/or IESG/IAB approval then it might make sense to p= ublish in the Independent Stream and have done with it). >=20 > #23 Oh dear =E2=98=B9We got this far down the list with loads of discus= sion of the =E2=80=9Cstrategy body=E2=80=9D, and we don=E2=80=99t know wh= ere to draw the line. >=20 > #24 Definitely the last thing we should do when building this shed is d= ecide on the paint colour. >=20 > Thanks for the leadership. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > *From:*Rfced-future *On Behalf Of *Eliot= Lear > *Sent:* 27 October 2020 13:10 > *To:* rfced-future@iab.org > *Subject:* [Rfced-future] Status of our discussions > Dear colleagues: >=20 > In preparation for the IETF meeting, here is a list of the issues that = we have before us. =C2=A0I=E2=80=99ve attempted to summarize how I see th= e state of issues. =C2=A0Feel free to correct me. =C2=A0The goal is to si= mply find ways to advance topics. =C2=A0Apart from those clearly labeled = =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D nothing else has rough consensus. >=20 > This again was based on the list that Brian prepared some time ago: =C2=A0 >=20 > 4=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= LLC legally & finanicially responsible for all contracts =C2=A0Consensus =C2=A0 >=20 > 5=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= RFC production and publishing are service contract(s). =C2=A0Consensus >=20 > 6=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= Streams have content control. =C2=A0Consensus >=20 > 7=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= A separate body debates strategy. =C2=A0Consensus >=20 > 8=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= This body must include stream representatives. =C2=A0Consensus >=20 > 9=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= Strategy body meetings are public =C2=A0Consensus =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > We will start on=C2=A0*these*=C2=A0below on the F2F: >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 10=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Is there a fig= urehead and thought leader of some kind? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > We=E2=80=99ve had a lot of discussion around whether the person is a =E2= =80=9Cthought leader=E2=80=9D, where the term isn=E2=80=99t entirely comm= only understood. =C2=A0It was a struggle for some to answer. =C2=A0Brian = proposed that we continue with two separate questions: >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > - do we need a person with specialized expertise? >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > My impression is that most people believe this to be the case. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Please tell me if you think I am wrong, given this: >=20 >=20 > - does that person act as a thought leader? >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > My impression is that there are still significant concerns about what t= his means. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 11=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 If there is a = figurehead, is this person a paid expert in technical publishing? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > That is- if we have anyone >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 1]. Is the person paid? >=20 > 2]. Does the person have expertise in technical publishing? >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > I think the big question that a small number of people have is about [1= ]. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 12=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Is the expert = an advisor (RSA) vs an executive editor (RSE). =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > There is a split within the group over this topic. =C2=A0Some people ha= ve made clear that they prefer an advisor, and others believe the role sh= ould be that of an executive editor, where the latter makes decisions. =C2= =A0We=E2=80=99ve had a bit of a discussion about what decisions would be = made. =C2=A0What, for instance, could the RPC management reasonably decid= e? =C2=A0What authority and expertise might they lack? =C2=A0Here we had = a contribution from the RPC that described some of their activities. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > One possible resolution is that the expert exercises moral authority =E2= =80=93 as experts do =E2=80=93 and provides guidance when asked by the RP= C within the existing framework. =C2=A0If the existing framework is found= to be wanting, the advisor might point this out to strategy body. =C2=A0= It is then up to them to resolve through whatever processes they have. =C2= =A0They might seek guidance from the advisor to resolve issues. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Tell me if you think this is unacceptable. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 13=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Is decision ma= king in the strategy body is open to all? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > This amounts to whether there is an open working group or an appointed/= elected body. =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 14=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Who chairs the= strategic body? = =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > There are three choices that have been proposed: >=20 > * Someones appointed by the IAB > * Someones appointed by the ISOC > * The RSE and ISE. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > This issue is obviously linked to how the body is composed. =C2=A0My su= ggestion is that this issue take a back seat for the moment. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 15=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Who makes fina= l decisions on strategy? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > This issue and issues 13 and 14 are clearly linked. =C2=A0We should spe= nd some time discussing this. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 16=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Who handles ov= ersight/appeals? = =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > There are three choices here: >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > * IAB > * ISOC BoT > * Matters stop at the RSE/RSEB >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 17=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Single contrac= t for REP vs separate contracts for production (RPC) & publication. =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > I wonder if we need to answer this question at all, and propose to defe= r it for now. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 18=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Contract monit= or(s) outside LLC? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > In the RSEB model the contract monitor is optional, and this seems to m= e a small detail of Mike=E2=80=99s proposal, but I=E2=80=99m sure he will= correct me. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 19=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Membership def= inition (RSEB model) =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > If there is a limited membership for a decision-making body, who are th= ose people? =C2=A0This is obviously linked to Issue 13. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 20=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Decider for hi= ring RSA/RSE? =C2= =A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Additional discussion required here. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 21=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Search committ= ee for hiring RSA/RSE? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Additional discussion required here. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 22=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Is there a new= , separate Editorial Stream? =C2=A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > I would like to know if anyone objects to an editorial stream coming in= to being? >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 23=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What is strate= gic (pragmatic definition needed)? =C2=A0In Discussion =C2=A0Text needed >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > This ties to what decisions the RPC can make versus what decisions are = to be left to the strategic body or RSE if that role is an executive. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > 24=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What is the na= me of the role? =C2= =A0In Discussion >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Issue 24 is very much tied to issues 10 and 12, and at least several pe= ople like the term =E2=80=9Cadvisor=E2=80=9D. =C2=A0But see Issue 12 abov= e. >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Do I have this about right? =C2=A0Please feel free to correct, contradi= ct, berate, bludgeon, or even agree! >=20 > =C2=A0 >=20 > Eliot >=20 >=20