Subject: [Iasa20] 6635bis, theory and practice

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 14:27:21 -0700

I was going to do  a blow by blow review of the 6635bis draft, but I
think we should
first address the difference between the theory presented in the draft
and the
actual practice.

The RFC Editor Model presented in Section2 describes how the various
bodies are supposed to
interact in theory, but the practice is significantly different. Some of
the theory is
correct: the RFC Editor does lead the design of improvements to the RFC
Series, is
According to the theory, is responsible for the content of the
rfc-editor.org web site,
and is responsible for developing consensus versions of vision and
policy documents. But
the RFC editor only has very limited possibilities to manage the RFC
Production Center and
the RFC Publisher. She shares that responsibility with the LLC, who
manages the contract.

Take for example the current situation, in which the RFC Production
Center is not quite
meeting the service level agreement. There are many possible
explanations. If the load
has increased significantly, the reasonable manager will provide more
resource to the
production center. On the other hand, if the productivity is
insufficient, the manager
should provide feedback and drive improvements. But the RFC Editor is
not in a position
to that, because resource and contracts are managed by the LLC.

There are good reasons why resource and contracts should be managed by
the LLC, which
means the LLC should be in the picture. The RFC Editor does set the
standards, checks the
SLA, monitors that the service runs well. She can provide advice to the
LLC on contract
goals, or on the impact of standards setting on the RFC Production
Center load. She can
provide "strategic leadership". But the management is really through the
LLC, and IMHO
the draft should reflect that.

The draft does not just say "manage", it also says "Represents the RFC
Series and the
RFC Editor Function within the IETF and externally." The external
representation is
fine, but I have some doubts about the internal issues. If the major
contracts are
managed by the LLC, then the LLC should be accountable for things like
meeting
service level agreements and expectation. Inserting the RSE between the
production
center and the community dilutes that accountability, and seems like a
bad idea.

We do have a disconnect between the theory presented in the draft and
the reality.
My vote would be to edit the draft so it does represent reality, and by
doing so
provide better accountability to the community.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 18:22:38 -0400

Christian, I have to disagree strongly with what you describe.

First, if you want to reopen the whole question of reporting and 
responsibility, please do not burden this revision of RFC 6635 with that 
debate.  That is a debate which will have to involve the whole extended 
community.

Second, your statement description of the RPC not meeting the SLA in 
this case seems to be missing the fact that the RSE has told us all many 
times that the transition work will impact the RPC.  I do not see any 
kind of failure or mismatch between theory and practice in the current 
situation.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/2/19 5:27 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 11:29:34 +1200

On 03-May-19 09:27, Christian Huitema wrote:

...
> We do have a disconnect between the theory presented in the draft and

Possibly, or possibly not, but that is outside the charter of this WG.

> provide better accountability to the community.

I think that is a question for the RSOC and the IAB to respond to. As far as I can see, this WG has done its job on this draft.

There is a public mailing list for RFC Editor matters: [email-masked]

    Brian

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 May 2019 20:04:33 -0400

>kind of failure or mismatch between theory and practice in the current 

The SLA has been an issue for a while, predating the IASA20 stuff.

If the RSOC or anyone else wants to propose changes more substantial
than making the LLC responsible for the contract management that the
IAOC (sort of) did, that's fine, but I'm not sure this is the place
for it.

R's,
John