Subject: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model-00

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:20:55 +1200

Hi,

At the high level, I think the draft is about right in terms of level
of detail and description of what is more or less agreed so far. Of
course there are gaps and open issues, but I assume we will cover
them on the list.

I agree with Adrian's review. One job that needs to be done is to check
that everything in RFC 8728 is taken care of. That could mean one of at
least three things for each item:
a) abolished (e.g. the RSOC; already covered)
b) replaced (e.g. whatever the RSE/A ends up as)
c) intentionally unspecified (because we should not micro-manage by RFC)

The third category might be the hardest, since we all love bikeshedding so
much. Maybe there should be an opening statement that details have been
avoided wherever possible, to avoid micro-management. So while I agree
with Adrian that there is valuable material in RFC 8728, I think we
should prune it wherever it looks like micro-management.

Agreeing on the RSE/A role appears to be the main gap in the -00 version,
which I assume we will discuss here soon enough. I have some concerns
about "6.1.  RSEA Selection" but I think those should be discussed
after the role is clarified.

One specific phrase needs fixing IMHO:

"Specifically, this document defines a structure in which ultimate
   authority lies with the IETF LLC..."

Er, no. Ultimate authority lies with the community. Try:

Specifically, this document defines a structure in which contractual
authority lies with the IETF LLC...

Regards
   Brian C

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:42:35 +0200

> On 22. Apr 2021, at 23:20, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> authority lies with the IETF LLC…

+1 This also irritated me.