IAOC Review

[rpelletier@…]

Joel,

The IAOC has completed it's review of <draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-01>. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the IAOC was in agreement that what is specified could be implemented and to review its alignment with BCP101. Our goal was to limit our comments to areas that affected the IAOC and not comment on RFC Editor policy issues that are the realm of the IAB. We also include several suggested organization changes that we believe improve the flow of the document and some small editorial changes relating to the use of IAOC and IASA.

We conducted most of the review durning the IAOC retreat on May 17 and 18 with the full IAOC, and a subset of the IAOC completed the review in two conference calls last week. David Kessens attended the retreat. The whole IAOC has reviewed the resulting comments.

There are three classes of changes proposed. The first are direct issues that affect the IAOC and BCP101. Examples of these include:

• Moving text "The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility as defined in [RFC2850] and [RFC4071 (BCP101)]." earlier into the document and into the abstract as we think this is important to state upfront.

• Clarification of the roles of the RSE and IASA/IAOC to make it clearer who is responsible for what, what things the RSE owns (e.g., Statement of Work, performance of contractors, content of RFC-Editor web site, etc.) and what things the IASA owns (budget process, vendor selection process, etc.).

• Clarification of how the RSOC works with the IASA/IAOC to determine the compensation of the RSE.

• Clarification of dispute processes. For example, policy disputes go to the IAB, and contract and budget disputes go the IAOC.

• Revision of figure 1 to clarify the relationship of the RSOC to the IAB.

• New figure 2, that shows the authority relationships of different entities (i.e., RSE, Production Center, Publisher) to the IAB and IAOC.

• Clarification of what entities and activities are supported by the IASA (e.g, the ISE).

The second class are organization changes that we think will make the document clearer. The best example of this is moving the Sections titled "RFC Editor Model" and "Committees" before the Section titled "Administrative Implementation". It reads better if the RFC Model and committee are defined prior to talking about the administrative implementation. There were also several smaller moving of paragraphs that we think make the document more understandable. These are not strictly IAOC issues, but we do think it significantly improves the document.

The last class are more editorial, such as using IAOC when an action is required, and IASA when the overall function is referenced.

Our input is included in three files to make it clearer what the proposed changes are. These are:

5620bis-Phase 2.doc Contains recommended changes as markups to the model as the document is currently organized

5620bis-Reconfig.doc Contains recommendations to the re-ordering of the document with the same markups

5620bis-Reconfig-CLEAN Is the reordered document in a Clean state, that is, no Markups, except questions

The Figures are to be inserted in the documents where indicated and are also included here as separate files.

Lastly, we found one area that we thought wasn't clear. It is in the above files, but we wanted to call it out here.

In the section titled "RSOC Composition" it says:

The RSE and a person designated to represent the IASA will serve as ex-officio members of the RSOC but either or both can be excluded
from its discussions if necessary.

The IAOC seeks clarity on the intent of this section. Is the IAOC appointed person to represent the IASA a non-voting liaison, or something different? Saying "ex-officio" doesn't clarify this. We recommend changing this to:

The IAOC will appoint a non-voting Liaison to the RSOC, but who can be excluded from its discussions if necessary.

Likewise, is the RSE a voting member of the RSOC? While we think this is an issue the IAB should decide, we note that the IAD is not a voting member of the IAOC and this structure has worked well.

Overall, we think these changed significantly improve the document and will increase the likelihood of it working successfully.

The IAOC would be happy to set up a conference call to go over each change to answer any questions you might have. Given the number of changes, we think this would be a good idea.

Ray
IETF Administrative Director

[bernard_aboba@…]

IAOC Review of RFC Editor Model Version 2