First, my apologies for once again confusing "Project" and
"Program". The latter was intended of course.
--On Sunday, July 10, 2011 13:15 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> The intention, as I understand it, regarding the RSOC is:
> 1) The IAB is responbsible for oversight of the RSE
> 2) The IAB understands that charging the full IAB with
> directly performing this function is unlikely to be effective
> 3) So the IAB is assigning a few IAB members, and a number of
> community members, to perform that oversight.
> 4) In order to ensure that this committee has sufficient
> authority, and has appropriate ties to the whole IAB, the IAB
> operates this as a program of the IAB. I.e., this is the
> method the IAB is using to exercise its responsibility and
> 4') In order to be clear with the community, this is described
> in the document rather than being left as an exercise for the
> discerning observer of IAB activities.
The above is consistent with my understanding (I take some small
blame for its design). However, it raises some problems for
the document. SM has identified some of those...
> On 7/10/2011 12:41 PM, SM wrote:
>> The Abstract Section mentions that:
>> "The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight by way of
>> delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is
>> described, as is the relationship between the IETF
>> Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC."
Note that I expressed some concern with that wording in my B.1
although not explicitly because I didn't consider it really
>> The IAB approves the appointment of an organization to act as
>> RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor.
>> It is within the IAB's prerogative to decide whether it wants
>> to delegate the finer details of that work to a committee,
>> e.g. RSOC. As nobody seemed to have any issue with the
>> wording, it's easier for me to skip that debate.
But this is exactly where Joel's #4 comes in.
>> The IAB runs various programs (you used the term project);
>> one of which is for the RFC Editor function. The RSOC cannot
>> remain as an IAB program and be integrated into the RFC
>> Editor function at the same time. It seems that the IAB wants
>> to spin off the program as a committee; another I* body. As
>> that raises questions that nobody wants to answer (one could
>> argue that it is too early to ask the question), the model
>> goes through twists and turns to get there.
Yes, exactly. And:
I claim that the IAB can't have it both ways: it is either an
IAB Program or it is a committee that is part of the RFC Editor
(i) If it is the former, then there should be no IAOC budget
item for the RSOC -- it is either budgeted as part of the RFC
Editor Function or it is part of the IAB budget.
(ii) If it is the latter, then the text of the document is
correct but some of the assumptions about things that the RSOC
can do, perhaps subject to IAB approval (see Joel's #2 and #3
above). But it is not clear that the IAB Charter allows the IAB
to create a semi-independent committee and delegate the
authority to it to oversee the RFC Editor function. In
addition, it is not clear that good sense, the potential for
conflicts of interest, etc., permit the RSOC to be part of the
RFC Editor function (including having a budget proposed and
overseen by the RSE) if it is also to oversee the RFC Editor
So, Joel, if the answer is "IAB Program", then anything that
implies that the RSOC is part of the RFC Editor Function,
including especially the discussion of IAOC budgeting in Section
4.2, has to be revised.