Subject: IAB Call for Comment on "The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)"

From: "IAB Chair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:49:07 -0700

The IAB has issued a Call for Comment on "The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)",
a document under development within the IAB Stream [RFC 4845].   The
document is available for inspection here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2

"The RFC Editor Model (Version 2)" reflects one year of experience with RFC
Editor Model version 1 [RFC 5620].  It describes IAB oversight of the RFC
Series via delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC), as well
as the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
(IAOC) and the RSOC.  The IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered
responsibility as defined in [RFC 2850] and [RFC 4071], so that changes to
those responsibilities are out of scope. 

The review period will last until July 30, 2011.    If you have read the
document and have comments, please send comments to [email-masked], with a CC:
to [email-masked].  If you have read the document and approve
without any suggested changes, please also respond stating your opinion.  

Information on the changes made in the latest version of the document is
provided in the message from Joel M. Halpern (editor) below. 

[For the IAB],

Bernard Aboba

IAB Chair

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02.txt
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

A new version of this document has been posted.
Based on the discussions that led to it, I wish to call the rfc-interest
list's attention to two items in the document.  Please use a separate
subject line in following up, and select the appropriate copy list.

Before I get to the two comments, a note of thanks.  The IAOC provided
significant restructuring of the document.  This made the document MUCH more
readable.  Thank you.

1) The IAOC provided specific text describing the vendor selection process.
This is intended to preserve the spirit of the previous versions of the
document, while aligning it with BCP 101 and being clearer about what has to
actually happen.  Several folks have expressed concern that it also changes
the the degree to which the RSE is involved in the selection.  Others
expressed disagreement.  This text has been reviewed by the IAB, but input
from the broader community is sought.

2) As the RSOC began working, it was noted that the requirement in this
document for documentation of the rules of the RSOC, and of the selection
process for the RSE, seem much more strict here than in RFCs guiding other
selection processes and bodies.  The text may well be more onerous than is
needed to ensure suitable community transparency. Opinions on whether this
can be relaxed, and suggested text, are solicited.

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern