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

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 13:19:18 -0600

Hi all,

In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I've uploaded an initial I-D
that incorporates much text from the Chairs' recent proposals as well as
from earlier I-Ds we've discussed here. This I-D is very much a work in
progress and there are doubtless errors of omission and commission.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/

Peter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 15:51:59 -0400

It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and 
you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting 
points you threw in to help.

As far as I can tell, the following:
    The IETF LLC shall also provide a structure for defining policies
    regarding the RFC series.  This document specifies such a structure
    through a new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), which shall submit its
    policy proposals to a new RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB).
is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list.  It has 
multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the 
authority to change this structure.
I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this 
adopted?" which is indeed important.

I realize that everything is open for discussion.  I do note and 
appreciate that some things are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to 
have less agreement.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:43:23 -0400

Please open an issue for this.

Thank you,
Joel

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:16:03 +0200

Can be found here:

https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/39 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/39>

Eliot

> On 5 Apr 2021, at 21:51, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It ia a bit hard to tell which parts of the document the chairs (and you) believe have rough consensus, and which parts are just starting points you threw in to help.
> 
> is an interesting idea which has not been discussed on the list.  It has multiple implications, including technically giving the LLC the authority to change this structure.
> I expect you put it in as a first cut for "what does it mean to get this adopted?" which is indeed important.
> 
> I realize that everything is open for discussion.  I do note and appreciate that some things are marked as "Open Issue" as they appear to have less agreement.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:09:13 +0300

Hi,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-rfced-model/

I gave this a quick read, below are some initial thoughts.

Thanks,
Lars

Section 4, paragraph 2, comment:
>    Continuing publication of RFCs shall be handled by the RFC Production
>    Center (RPC) function in accordance with current policies in force or
>    future policies defined as specified in the next section of this
>    document.

I'm not quite sure what "Continuing publication" is meant to express - can
"continuing" be removed, or else, what does it signify? (Or was the intent to
say "Publication ... shall continue to be handled"?)

Section 5.1.1, paragraph 1, comment:
> 5.1.1.  RFC Series Working Group (RSWG)

Calling this group a Working Group will likely be a constant source of confusion
for IETF participants that do not pay much attention to organizational
discussions, because this group will be significantly different from "real" IETF
WGs. I'm wondering if calling it a "Policy Group" or by some other name may reduce
that possibility for confusion.

Section 5.1.1, paragraph 2, comment:
>    The IETF Chair and the Independent Submissions Editor shall each
>    appoint and oversee a co-chair of the RSWG.

I can understand why each separately appoints one chair, but why would each then
continue to oversee only the one chair they appointed?

Section 5.1.2, paragraph 4, comment:
>    The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:

Are there members other than voting members on the RSAB? If not, just call them
members? If yes, who are they?

Section 5.1.2, paragraph 7, comment:
Is there an intention for the RSAB to gain additional (voting) members
if new RFC streams are created in the future?

Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment:
>    1.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
>        Again, all RSAB members MUST participate.

This is an unenforceable MUST.

Section 5.2.2, paragraph 18, comment:
>    2.  If all CONCERN positions are addressed, then the proposal is
>        approved.  Again, if substantial changes have been made, an
>        additional call for community input should be made.

It's not quite clear what "addressed" means. It would be clearer to say "A
proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved."

Section 6.1, paragraph 2, comment:
>    process in confidence.  The initial length of service shall be for
>    one year, but then further extensions will be for three to five
>    years.

It will IMO be difficult to hire the desired senior professional on a one-year
contract.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:39:47 +0200

Just on this.

> On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Perhaps so.  One way to turn it into an enforceable MUST would be too ay that if the SRAB member who raised the CONCERN doesn’t participate in follow-on conversations in {X weeks}, the CONCERN is said to be resolved.

There are a few catches around such a statement: what if someone is sick?

Eliot

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:43:21 +0200

> On 23. Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree. Maybe Strategy Group is better than Policy Group?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:03:17 +0100

The undiscussed and so unresolved CONCERN would be voted on by the RSAB.

Persistence would be appealable as a process violation.

Best,

Adrian

From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 23 April 2021 12:40
To: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] draft-saintandre-rfced-model

Just on this.

On 23 Apr 2021, at 13:09, Lars Eggert <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

Eliot

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:25:58 +0900

> that possibility for confusion.

I think this is a valid point. We haven't discussed this point up to 
now, but my guess is that to some extent, we were using the term 
"Working Group" up to now because we want to make sure that people 
understand that it's very much like a WG. In particular, I think it's 
very important that people understand that everybody is free to participate.

Also in other aspects, for WG participants, the differences look minor 
to me. For the chairs and the other 'higher-ups', the differences will 
be bigger, but we should think about the WG participants first.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:13:26 +1200

Lars,

> that possibility for confusion.

However, I think we should still call it a WG, precisely to emphasise that
it broadly speaking operates according to RFC2418 with a similar notion
of rough consensus. Yes, there will be occasional confusion and a need to
repeat that it isn't an *IETF* WG. I think that's a price worth paying.

Of course we can qualify the name with "Policy" or "Strategy". But please
don't remove "WG".

Earlier I proposed "RFC Series Advisory WG". I still like that.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:10:26 +0200

Lars,

I’ve opened Issue 46 for your comments in bulk.  In as much as anything needs to be broken out into separate issues, we can do that as we discuss this issue.

Eliot

> Signed PGP part

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:54:19 -0600

Apologies for the delayed reply. Expect many messages soon. I might
modify subject lines (as here) so that we can keep better track of the
topics.

> points you threw in to help.

If it's any consolation, I'm not convinced that *any* parts of the
document have rough consensus yet.

> adopted?" which is indeed important.

I'm not wedded to that phrasing. What I was trying to capture is that
there might need to be some ultimate authority for the policy-defining
structure (RSWG, RSAB, etc.) that is being specified in *this* document.
Naively that might seem to be the IETF LLC, but on the other hand
perhaps there is joint authority held among the entities that name
members of the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) - or something else
entirely. Whatever definition we settle on might have implications for
the appeals process, too.

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:13:35 -0600

> Of course we can qualify the name with "Policy" or "Strategy". But please

As editor, I'll update the document with whatever we settle on.

Personally, I see "working group" as a generic term and not specific to
RFC 2418 (after all, it's a group formed to get work done and hopefully
the participants will be dedicated to working together well).

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:20:48 -0600

> say "Publication ... shall continue to be handled"?)

Yes, that. Will update the text.

<snip/>

> continue to oversee only the one chair they appointed?

Ah, that was an infelicity in the wording. Will fix.

> members? If yes, who are they?

Well, we've had much discussion about who has a vote, and that text was
deliberately vague. Once we come to consensus on RSAB membership and
voting, I'll clean up this phrasing.

> if new RFC streams are created in the future?

I don't think we've discussed that, but we should and I've opened an
issue: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/53

> This is an unenforceable MUST.

Probably. We might phrase it as "all RSAB members are expected to
participate".

> proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved."

Yes, that's clearer.

> It will IMO be difficult to hire the desired senior professional on a one-year

Whatever we decide on, I'll incorporate in the text.

Peter