Subject: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:33:23 -0800

I have reviewed this document in my capacity as an Area Director, since the
IESG was asked for input.

I don't have much in the way of substantive comments.  It's clear a lot of
work has already gone into this.  Only one thing stood out to me as I read
it:

Section 3.2.2 describes the procedure the RSAB will apply when deciding on
an item forwarded to it by the RSWG.  It is reminiscent of the procedures
used by the IESG when balloting on documents presented to us for review.
In particular, bullet 9 of that process states that an RSAB member can take
up a position called "CONCERN" when there appears to be a matter worthy of
discussion before the proposal can advance.  This mirrors IESG procedures,
where we might place a "DISCUSS" ballot to identify something that might be
harmful if implemented, for example.

Bullet 9 also enumerates specific reasons one might use a "CONCERN"
position.  Notably absent from this list is the notion that some aspect of
the proposal under consideration is not written with sufficient clarity
that it can be understood or unambiguously implemented.  I suggest that
such a thing might be a valid reason to hold progress for further
discussion, or to return the item to the RSWG for development.  Another
possibility is an observation by an RSAB member that the procedures
described in this document prior to consideration by the RSAB were not
properly followed, which might also be a reason to return the work to the
RSWG for further development or other handling.

-MSK, ART AD

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:10:08 +0100

Hi Murray,

On 10.03.22 07:33, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> position.  Notably absent from this list is the notion that some 
> aspect of the proposal under consideration is not written with 
> sufficient clarity that it can be understood or unambiguously 
> implemented.  I suggest that such a thing might be a valid reason to 
> hold progress for further discussion, or to return the item to the 
> RSWG for development.  Another possibility is an observation by an 
> RSAB member that the procedures described in this document prior to 
> consideration by the RSAB were not properly followed, which might also 
> be a reason to return the work to the RSWG for further development or 
> other handling.
>
The philosophy behind CONCERNs is that they should be rare, and that the 
community really should be taking responsibility for the content of a 
document.  Thus, unless something truly rises to a threat to a stream or 
the long term health of the series, the RSAB should stay out of the 
way.  Those two CONCERN criteria are sufficiently broad to permit 
members to act if the policy truly looks like it will cause harm in some 
way.

Eliot

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 07:37:55 -0800

> members to act if the policy truly looks like it will cause harm in some

If we are to think of the RSWG as a typical working group (which the
document otherwise suggests is how we should think of it), then I can't
discount the possibility that something might be handed to the RSAB that is
not really ready for consideration, for whatever reason.  As I read what
you're saying here, this proposal presumes that can't (or won't) happen.
I'm thinking defensively here; what do we do when it does happen?  It seems
to me the RSAB needs a path to deal with such a situation, and they don't
with "CONCERN" constrained the way it is here.

-MSK

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:49:20 +0100

On 10.03.22 16:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> document otherwise suggests is how we should think of it), then I 
> can't discount the possibility that something might be handed to the 
> RSAB that is not really ready for consideration, for whatever reason.  
> As I read what you're saying here, this proposal presumes that can't 
> (or won't) happen.

I think the way to look at it is risk-based, and that authority is 
balanced such that the risks of authority abuse by the RSAB are 
prioritized certain classes of errors made by the community.

Eliot

> I'm thinking defensively here; what do we do when it does happen?  It 
> seems to me the RSAB needs a path to deal with such a situation, and 
> they don't with "CONCERN" constrained the way it is here.
>
> -MSK

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:50:11 -0500

On 3/10/2022 10:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> (or won't) happen.  I'm thinking defensively here; what do we do when 
> it does happen?  It seems to me the RSAB needs a path to deal with 
> such a situation, and they don't with "CONCERN" constrained the way it 
> is here.
>
> -MSK
>
I had a view and arguments related to that view similar to what you 
indicate above.  I wasn't successful getting those reflected in the 
text.  I gave up mainly because the reality is that the document can't 
actually force an RSAB member to give up a CONCERN that they lodge for 
any reason they, and only they, feel is sufficient.

Basically, I assume that an RSAB member will refuse to remove the 
CONCERN in such circumstances regardless of what the document says (e.g. 
people aren't protocol elements are are not necessarily bound to 
adjudicate as described), and that if less than three RSAB members vote 
yes, the path for the RSWG is to appeal the vote.

We keep talking about "community" as if the RSAB isn't part of it.  It 
is - but documents don't get published in this series without their 
approval.   That's their part of "taking responsibility for the content 
of the document" as community members.

I tend to agree with you about the language, but I doubt the reality 
will be so clean as the language implies.  Feel free to push back - the 
IAB and IESG have to be comfortable with making sure that this new model 
does not impede their missions and that there are sufficient guard rails 
in place to gain that comfort.

Later, Mike

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 09:57:04 -0800

Hi Eliot,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:49 AM Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> balanced such that the risks of authority abuse by the RSAB are prioritized
> certain classes of errors made by the community.
>

This document suggests to me that abuse concerns are handled by the appeals
process, not by the balloting phase.

I think my review of this is informed by my experience on the IESG.   The
IESG has a ballot position called "DISCUSS" that lets us require further
discussion in several situations before the document under review can
advance to publication.  Four prime examples of this are: (a) a document
that is trying to present a good idea, but does it quite poorly; (b) a
document that is trying to advance a bad idea, even if clearly; (c) a
document whose development process was not properly followed; and (d) a
document that was tainted by a process abuse of some kind, such as a
conflict of interest or improper use of discretion.

As I read the proposed "CONCERN" criteria, they cover some but not all of
those possibilities, and that's what caught my attention.  Now, it could be
the case that "serious harm" and "serious problem" in the "CONCERN"
criteria are meant to cover all of those possibilities, but that wasn't
evident when I read it.  I suggest that be made explicit if that's the
intent.

It's been pointed out to me separately that there's an expectation that the
RSAB will be more directly involved with the development of a proposal in
the RSWG than would be the case with similar work in the IETF stream.  If
so, then a "CONCERN" would indeed be unique (just like me putting a
"DISCUSS" on a document that I approved at the WG level would be pretty
weird), but it also means this expectation of direct involvement was not
sufficiently evident in the document when I read it.

-MSK

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:57:34 -0700

Hi Murray, thanks for your review. Comments below.

On 3/10/22 10:57 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:49 AM Eliot Lear <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>>     On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:10 PM Eliot Lear <[email-masked]
>>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>     If we are to think of the RSWG as a typical working group (which
>>     the document otherwise suggests is how we should think of it),
>>     then I can't discount the possibility that something might be
>>     handed to the RSAB that is not really ready for consideration, for
>>     whatever reason.  As I read what you're saying here, this proposal
>>     presumes that can't (or won't) happen.
> 
> This document suggests to me that abuse concerns are handled by the 
> appeals process, not by the balloting phase.
> 
> I think my review of this is informed by my experience on the IESG.   
> The IESG has a ballot position called "DISCUSS" that lets us require 
> further discussion in several situations before the document under 
> review can advance to publication.  Four prime examples of this are: (a) 
> a document that is trying to present a good idea, but does it quite 
> poorly; (b) a document that is trying to advance a bad idea, even if 
> clearly; (c) a document whose development process was not properly 
> followed; and (d) a document that was tainted by a process abuse of some 
> kind, such as a conflict of interest or improper use of discretion.
> 
> As I read the proposed "CONCERN" criteria, they cover some but not all 
> of those possibilities, and that's what caught my attention. 

The Program discussed the CONCERN criteria in fair detail. My read is 
that (a) and (b) would be solved by having RSAB members involved in RSWG 
discussions and that (c) and (d) could be appealed.

> Now, it 
> could be the case that "serious harm" and "serious problem" in the 
> "CONCERN" criteria are meant to cover all of those possibilities, but 
> that wasn't evident when I read it.  I suggest that be made explicit if 
> that's the intent.

IMHO "the proposal would cause serious harm to the overall Series, 
including harm to the long-term health and viability of the Series" is a 
more specific and clearly defined criterion than "is trying to advance a 
bad idea" in your (b) clause.

As to your (a) clause, if the proposal is defined so poorly that it 
can't be implemented then I would expect an RSAB member to raise a 
CONCERN that the proposal causes serious harm, as above.

> It's been pointed out to me separately that there's an expectation that 
> the RSAB will be more directly involved with the development of a 
> proposal in the RSWG than would be the case with similar work in the 
> IETF stream.  If so, then a "CONCERN" would indeed be unique (just like 
> me putting a "DISCUSS" on a document that I approved at the WG level 
> would be pretty weird), but it also means this expectation of direct 
> involvement was not sufficiently evident in the document when I read it.

The document says this several times, specifically in Section 3.1.1.2 
and in Section 3.2.2 points 3, 9 & 10. Do you feel it should also be 
mentioned elsewhere (e.g., in the section about the RSAB)?

Peter

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:30:29 -0800

Hey Peter,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [...]

OK.  I didn't read (a) and (b) as being covered by the current proposal as
presented, but thanks for clarifying.

If possible, I'd suggest this be made more explicit; a later iteration of
the IAB, RSAB, RSWG, etc., might not automatically inherit that context.

> mentioned elsewhere (e.g., in the section about the RSAB)?

I do see it now that I've read it all again.  Thanks (to you and Mirja) for
setting me straight.

It's still a little odd, however; by pushing for the RSAB to be
participants in the RSWG (which solves the first issue), it has the
appearance of the RSAB ultimately being the approvers of proposals they
helped to develop.

-MSK

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:35:31 -0700

Hi. Comments inline.

On 3/10/22 5:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hey Peter,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> OK.  I didn't read (a) and (b) as being covered by the current proposal 
> as presented, but thanks for clarifying.
> 
> If possible, I'd suggest this be made more explicit; a later iteration 
> of the IAB, RSAB, RSWG, etc., might not automatically inherit that context.

We did go back and forth on many aspects of this document, trying to 
strike the right balance between helpful direction and too much detail. 
This seems like another spot where that balance might be important. If 
we mention now that Factors A and B are good reasons for an RSAB member 
to raise a CONCERN, but we don't mention Factors C and D, how should a 
future RSAB member proceed? Could someone file an appeal if an RSAB 
member invokes Factor D?

As I see it, the RSAB member would need to make a case that a proposal 
would cause serious harm to a stream or the Series; as long as they can 
make a plausible or reasonable argument for that, I don't see why we 
need to tie their hands now.

That said, I'm merely the document editor and I'll add whatever text we 
agree on...

> I do see it now that I've read it all again.  Thanks (to you and Mirja) 
> for setting me straight.
> 

A few thoughts:

1. The expectation of this document is that people who know and care 
about the RFC Series will help to develop RSWG proposals by providing 
valuable input throughout the process, indeed as early as possible.

2. More specifically, the document says nothing about who may or may not 
author RSWG proposals. Thus an RSAB member, someone from the RPC team, 
the RSCE, the ISE, the IETF LLC executive director, and others could 
author or edit RSWG proposals.

3. The Program participants did not conclude that early involvement from 
any of the foregoing people (or anyone else) would constitute a conflict 
of interest, even if they co-author a proposal. Is that your primary 
concern here?

4. The Program participants weighed the cost and benefits of RSAB member 
involvement in the RSWG and concluded that it would be more effective to 
have them involved (which is why the document actively encourages them 
to do so).

This is my recollection, anyway. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:20:21 +0100

On 2022-03-11, at 02:35, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 1. The expectation of this document is that people who know and care about the RFC Series will help to develop RSWG proposals by providing valuable input throughout the process, indeed as early as possible.

I think the unease that Mike expressed is related to my perception:

This is a “nice weather contract”.

You make contracts to describe what happens in a bad situation.
With a view to avoiding such a bad situation in the first place.

The bad situation here is that the RSAB is sidetracked in the RSWG process, either by conscious actions of RSWG players or inadvertently (i.e., the rule changes under consideration have an unintended consequence that wasn’t receiving attention while in the RSWG).

The RSAB MUST be able to stop train-wrecks before they happen.
Formulating non-actionable rules that restrict what they can say is not good, not only because (as Mike pointed out) they force RSAB members to resort to what is essentially process abuse.

Like Mike, I have given up trying to fix this, because the understanding that the opportunity for the process abuse is now an anticipated part of the operation of the RSAB can solve the problem nicely (well, not really “nicely").

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:39:00 -0700

> The RSAB MUST be able to stop train-wrecks before they happen.

As far as I can see, they can do that - even though they were supposed 
to participate during RSWG discussions, they might notice something 
during their RSAB review that they missed earlier on, community comments 
could introduce a new issue, etc.

> Like Mike, I have given up trying to fix this, because the understanding that the opportunity for the process abuse is now an anticipated part of the operation of the RSAB can solve the problem nic…

Proposed text changes are welcome.

Peter

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:48:12 +0100

On 11.03.22 17:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> during their RSAB review that they missed earlier on, community 
> comments could introduce a new issue, etc.

Yes, they can stop train wrecks, but may not be able to stop some fender 
benders.  That's the balance the group struck.

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:11:35 -0500

On 3/10/2022 8:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> OK.  I didn't read (a) and (b) as being covered by the current 
>> proposal as presented, but thanks for clarifying.
>>
>> If possible, I'd suggest this be made more explicit; a later 
>> iteration of the IAB, RSAB, RSWG, etc., might not automatically 
>> inherit that context.
>
> strike the right balance between helpful direction and too much 
> detail. This seems like another spot where that balance might be 
> important. If we mention now that Factors A and B are good reasons for 
> an RSAB member to raise a CONCERN, but we don't mention Factors C and 
> D, how should a future RSAB member proceed? Could someone file an 
> appeal if an RSAB member invokes Factor D?
>
> would cause serious harm to a stream or the Series; as long as they 
> can make a plausible or reasonable argument for that, I don't see why 
> we need to tie their hands now.

"An RSAB member voted CONCERN (or not YES)"  can be evaluated on an 
objective basis - they did or they didn't.

"An RSAB member voted CONCERN for a good reason" can only be evaluated 
on a subjective basis and each individual hearing the reason may have a 
different idea of what's reasonable.  In the end *someone* has to decide 
what reasonable is, and AFAICT with the model, that's through the 
appeals process - the RSWG participants* may comment on what they 
believe to be reasonable, but that set of comments is not controlling on 
the appeals process.

Put another way, we can write down any (many?) constraints we want on 
the RSAB voting process, but unless the criteria for the constraint is 
objective and can be evaluated by each participant in the exact same 
way, all the constraint really does is push the objective evaluation 
problem to the appeals process.

In any event, if I were an RSAB member I would vote CONCERN if I had an 
issue, even if the issue was brought up and ignored in the RSWG because 
the RSAB has a different job from the RSWG and different 
responsibilities.  Right now, the RSWG has to convince 3 RSAB members to 
vote YES to progress the document, CONCERNS are not blocking except as 
they are not YES votes.  If there are 3 RSAB members with CONCERNs (e.g. 
only two YES votes out of 5), I would find it hard to believe that the 
appeals process would not take notice of this and fail to override what 
are essentially NO votes.

*The RSWG will be a group consisting of a varying number of participants 
with varying interests.  They will have a mechanism for establishing 
consensus within that group to advance a document, and - I would expect 
- any pushback on publishing a consensus document would get from them a 
general sense of unreasonableness related to that consensus.  Note that 
these both the request to publish and the pushback on a CONCERN will 
derive from the exact same process and shouldn't be given double 
consideration in the appeals process.

Sorry - all of this is a long way of saying that the vote "CONCERN" is 
the important part and the member can cast that for whatever reason THEY 
think is plausible and reasonable regardless of any external opinion.  
Whatever the RSAB member says next ends up needing to be evaluated in 
the appeals process - "plausible" and "reasonable" are subjective issues 
that can't be resolved mechanically.   In any event, if there are three 
YES votes for a document the appeals process will never be invoked - at 
least by the RSWG.

Later, Mike

ps - thought questions:  Has the IAB ever resolved an appeal in a manner 
that directed the IESG to approve the publication of a document?   Or 
for that matter ISOC directing the IAB?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:07:10 +0100

By my reading of RFC 2026 Section 6.5.2, this would not be permissible:

>    If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
>    annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
>    decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
>    or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
>    however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
>    only the IESG is empowered to make.

Eliot

On 11.03.22 20:11, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Has the IAB ever resolved an appeal in a manner that directed the IESG 
> to approve the publication of a document?