Subject: Request for input (patchwork RFCs)

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:39:14 -0800 (PST)

All -

At the behest of the IAOC, I recently published a draft:

"Tasks previously assigned to the IETF Executive Director"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lynch-execd-tasks-00.txt

Which was intended to tidy up some issues left over from our
pre-BCP 101 days:

    "BCP 101 [RFC4071] requires the IETF Administrative Oversight
    Committee to "designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG,
    the person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process
    documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director."  The
    purpose of this document is to document the agreed designations.

    The RFCs updated by this document are all those that have not already
    been obsoleted which assign tasks to the IETF Executive Director
    (sometimes abbreviated as ExecD).  Note that there is no relationship
    to the IAB Executive Director.

    In general the tasks concerned are well defined and closely linked to
    other duties of the IETF Secretariat.  Therefore, in what follows,
    almost all of them are re-assigned to the Secretariat.  It is
    expected that they will normally be performed by the person occupying
    the role of Head of Secretariat."

The document kicked off a short discussion about "patchwork RFCs"
in the IPR-WG:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04642.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04643.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04647.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04649.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg04650.html

Which we (the IAOC) thought had value. We consulted with Jorge Contreras
who opined thusly:

> First, I think we all agree that BCP 101 gives IAOC sufficient authority
> to redesignate the ExecD's functions to others.  I also agree that the
> redesignations outlined in your draft ID all seem reasonable and
> inoffensive.
>
> The question (I think) is whether this redesignation should be
> memorialized in an RFC (which would need to go through the community
> consensus process), or whether IAOC could make such redesignations in a
> less formal matter, either ad hoc or through publication of an
> administrative document (are these now called IONs?).

Now, the recently published RFC 4693: IETF Operational Notes
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4693.txt says:

  "This document series is intended to capture the set of procedures
   that the IETF follows, but for which the RFC process is an
   inappropriate documentation vehicle."

So, my question to the community, as the author of this admittedly
pitiful draft is:

Should I withdraw the draft and publish it as an IAOC approved ION?

This seems cleaner to me, but I'd like your input.

Thanks -

- Lucy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:20:20 -0500

Lucy,

It seems to me that anything that the IAOC feels able to do 
without formally asking for community consensus is a candidate 
for an ION unless its significance is so broad that permanent/ 
archival RFC documentation is appropriate.  I believe that IAOC 
should be able to make that decision, ideally announcing it in a 
way that would permit an appeal if someone felt the decision was 
seriously out of whack.

For this particular draft, I think that translates into "you 
decide".   If I were deciding I would recommend ION, but that is 
just because I aspire to be a charter member of the "keep 
unnecessary administrative clutter out of the RFC Series" club.

     john

--On Friday, February 16, 2007 13:39 -0800 Lucy Lynch 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> First, I think we all agree that BCP 101 gives IAOC
>> sufficient authority to redesignate the ExecD's functions to
>> others.  I also agree that the redesignations outlined in
>> your draft ID all seem reasonable and inoffensive.
>>
>> memorialized in an RFC (which would need to go through the
>> community consensus process), or whether IAOC could make such
>> redesignations in a less formal matter, either ad hoc or
>> through publication of an administrative document (are these
>> now called IONs?).
>
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:24:27 -0800

>Should I withdraw the draft and publish it as an IAOC approved ION?

Yes. It is a great use of IONs.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:40:12 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, John C Klensin wrote:

> Lucy,
>
> It seems to me that anything that the IAOC feels able to do without formally 
> asking for community consensus is a candidate for an ION unless its 
> significance is so broad that permanent/ archival RFC documentation is 
> appropriate.  I believe that IAOC should be able to make that decision, 
> ideally announcing it in a way that would permit an appeal if someone felt 
> the decision was seriously out of whack.
>
> For this particular draft, I think that translates into "you decide".   If I 
> were deciding I would recommend ION, but that is just because I aspire to be 
> a charter member of the "keep unnecessary administrative clutter out of the 
> RFC Series" club.

Sign me up! Is there a secret handshake? Do I get to wear a fez?

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:12:57 -0500

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:40:12 -0800 (PST)

> Sign me up! Is there a secret handshake? Do I get to wear a fez?
We use public key handshakes these days.  And it's f(e)^z.  All of this
is spelled out in the Security Considerations section of that club.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb