Subject: RSOC name

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:15:10 -0400

I don't think the IAB project model fits very well for the RFC Series
and that it should have different governance for which I have some
ideas. But I wanted to talk about something else: the power of
nomenclature.

The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is "Oversight". What do
people think when they hear "oversight"? They think that a large part
the job of whoever has "oversight" is to review and criticize. No
doubt the fine print clarifies things but every time someone thinks
about or volunteers for or is appointed to the RSOC, it rings the
"oversight" gong. Of course there are plenty of worse words than
"oversight". I suppose it could have been called the RFC Series
Management Committee or something...

What if everything else we the same, but it had been called the RFC
Series Support Committee? And everytime someone thought about or
volunteer for or was appointed to the committee they were reminded
that this is about supporting the RFC Series?

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Mike StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:22:33 -0400

It’s not so much what we call it as what they think they’re allowed to do.  

Just saying - Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 29, 2019, at 19:15, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:24:33 -0400

Yes, but at the same time, Donald is not wrong about the power of priming. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 29, 2019, at 7:22 PM, Mike StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:30:05 +0100

Mike,

On 30/07/2019 00:22, Mike StJohns wrote:
> Itâ€™s not so much what we call it as what they think theyâ€™re allowed to do.  

That seems mostly like snark. I don't have a problem
with you doing that myself but I would point out that
it kinda kills a bunch of arguments that you yourself
might want to propose for some better path.

If your "they" is valid, then it'd be as valid a pseudo-
criticism against anything you yourself may propose.

S.

PS: Don's mail doesn't have that kind of problem.

---

From: "Stan Kalisch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:38:01 -0400

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> That seems mostly like snark.

Speaking as an observer, it didn't seem that way to me.

Stan

> I don't have a problem
> *Attachments:*
>  * 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
>  * signature.asc

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 21:01:44 -0400

Top posting - just because.

Don said "What if everything else we [sic] the same, but it had been 
called the RFC Series Support Committee?"

I said "It's not so much what we  call it as what they think they're 
allowed to do".

Not quite sure where you get "snark" from that. (And I've read the rest 
of the chain).

Basically, if all you did was change the name of the group in 6635, 
IMNSHO we still would have ended up in exactly the same place that we did.

Later, Mike

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 02:22:48 +0100

Hi Mike,

On 30/07/2019 02:01, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I said "It's not so much what weÂ  call it as what they think they're
> allowed to do".
> 

Fair enough. My interpretation is that going from "s/oversight/support/
to s/us/them/ wasn't constructive and seemed to me snarky. If I'm wrong
about that then, sorry, and I do apologise. (Mind you that sounds a bit
like a contingently shit apology - basically, I do think I'm right in my
critique of your mail, but if, as does often happen, I'm wrong, then I
actually am really sorry, and hope that's less contingently shit;-)

I nonetheless do think Don's mail about support vs. oversight is likely
much more useful than an "us" vs. "them" description where "them" is
really "us via nomcom," and is hence, "us."

Cheers,
S.

>>> ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not so much what we call it as what they think
>>> theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re allowed to do.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 21:51:02 -0400

I can well believe that a different word would have been better.
For me, the word came from the only explicit tasking, namely the hiring 
and biennial review of the RSE by the RSOC.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:04:10 -0400

Hi,

As ever, I do not speak for the Internet Society though I am employed
by it.  I'm posting this note especially because I have certain
experiences not widely shared: I was all of an IAB member, an IAB
chair, an IAOC member, and an IAOC chair during some portion of the
past where various bits of RFC 6635 applied.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:15:10PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> the job of whoever has "oversight" is to review and criticize.

I don't think that.  What I think is that it is the responsibility of
the oversight body to ensure that the thing to be overseen is
accomplished according to some conditions.  I'd like to think that the
conditions are well-operationalized so that people are in a position
to know about this.

The fundamental basis of oversight is the ability to decide whether a
given overseen thing is or is not adequately done.  At a high level,
this generally works out to "hire and fire" capability.  (Note you can
do it other ways.  Gating-function, for instance, could do this, but
it seems unwise to implement.)

That capability with respect to the RFC Series Editor goes back at
least to RFC 2850, which says, "The IAB must approve the appointment
of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy
followed by the RFC Editor."  This is of course far less concrete than
the full blown-out description found in RFC 6635.  But the basic rule
is already there.

> that this is about supporting the RFC Series?

I don't know what the world would be like in the case of
terminological change like you propose.  But I would like to suppose
that everyone involved in the IAB, at least, and anyone I (at least)
ever asked to be on the RSOC regarded their role as making the RFC
series successful.  And making the Editor's general policy cohere with
the IAB's agreement is no innovation from 6635: it's right there in
2850.  It was also in RFC 1601 and RFC 1358.  I am not too sure that
the responsibility of the IAB for this issue is grounded in anything
earlier than 1358, but I'm also not sure that a responsibility that
has been repeatedly affirmed in print since 1992 is one that we can
assume is inoperative.

Elsewhere, Mike StJohns has claimed, "This is a senior person who
really should be co-equal with the IAB and IESG."  I do not find the
documented tradition that suggests this is true.  On the contrary, I
can find documents stretching back to at least 1992 (where I stopped
digging) suggesting that the RSE is in fact subordinate to the IAB.
That is not to suggest the relationship is some sort of
directive-management one.  In my current job, I have plenty of
colleagues who know more about their area than I do (i.e. all of
them), yet I am responsible for their direction and in this formal
sense they are "subordinate" to me.  If any of them messes up, they
are not responsible to my board: I am.  Co-equal suggests that perhaps
the RSE ought to be picked by nomcom.  I'm not too sure that is
desirable.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:53:15 +1200

Andrew,
> the full blown-out description found in RFC 6635.  But the basic rule

No, I really don't agree. I was the editor of RFC 2850. It uses the term
"oversight" explicitly in the phrases "Architectural Oversight" and
"Standards Process Oversight and Appeal", but not in reference to the
RFC Editor. It uses a quite different formulation: "The IAB must approve
the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general
policy followed by the RFC Editor." This was not an accident of drafting.
(At that time, the organization was ISI and the general policy was created
by Bob Braden and Joyce Reynolds, but we didn't expect that to last for
ever, and it didn't.)

I now believe that the reformulation including "oversight" in RFC5620,
updated in RFC6635, was a collective error, which I certainly missed
at the time. Particularly, the phrase "The IAB retains its oversight
role..." in RFC5620 was inappropriate IMHO, because there was previously
no such formal oversight role to retain.

Would you say that the IAB, whose membership is approved by the ISOC Board,
is therefore under the oversight of ISOC?

I think we got this wrong and now we are paying the price.

IMHO the long term fix will be an "RFC Editor Model (Version 3)" that
underlines and guarantees the independence of the RFC Series and its Editor.

To be clear, of course the production and publication contracts need
proper contract management, but that is more of an IETF LLC role.

> series successful.  
I'm sure that's correct.

> And making the Editor's general policy cohere with

I still don't see how approving a policy morphed into oversight, which
seems to have morphed further in recent times. By telling a group of
people that they had oversight, we unintentionally set the scene for
things to go wrong.

> digging) suggesting that the RSE is in fact subordinate to the IAB.

Well, that is obviously a matter of interepretation, but my preferred
phrasing is that the relationship should be "collegial".
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegial)
That matches what I observed most of the time until very recently.

> the RSE ought to be picked by nomcom.  I'm not too sure that is

Since the skill set is not one we commonly find in our own community,
I agree with you there. A search committee model seems more appropriate.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:34:56 -0400

I'm currently TL;dr most of Andrew's message because I think I've 
already made the points I need to make and I don't think anything he's 
said in those sections needs me to stir anything in.  But I will list 
some of  my own relevant "experiences" lest anyone think I'm not 
familiar with the history:

100 IETF meetings including meeting 1
Nomcom chair
twice IAB member
one of the original program chairs for the IETF 87 time frame
contract manager for the NIC contract (funding RFC publication, IANA 
services)  85-89
contract manager for the ISI contract (funding Jon, Bob and Joyce) 92-96
Defense Data Network Program contract oversight MITRE (original IETF 
secretariat services).

> digging) suggesting that the RSE is in fact subordinate to the IAB.

It's too bad you didn't check out the '92 IAB charter then:

RFC 1358, Section 8:

> Section 8  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1358#section-8>.
>
>     The chair of the IAB, with the approval of at least two-thirds of the
>     IAB membership, shall have the authority to appoint an Editor for the
>     Request for Comments (RFC) publication series (the "RFC Editor"), who
>     shall be responsible for the editorial management and publication of
>     the RFC series.  If the RFC Editor is not a member of the IAB, he or
>     she shall serve ex officio as a member of the IAB unless and until
>     made a regular member of the IAB.  The RFC Editor may be removed at
>     any time by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the
>     IAB.

Basically, the IAB has existed in roughly three forms:

  * A group of heads of US DOD ARPA research task forces - approximately
    from inception to 1992 both self-selected and contract driven.
  * A technical committee of the ISOC - from 92-94 (RFC1358) and
  * the current structure from approximately 94 on.

The RFC editor has existed in roughly 7 forms (I wasn't around in the 
Steve/Jon transition time so that part is anecdotal - inception was ~69):

  * Inception - Steve Crocker - primarily as an adhoc record keeping
    system for the ARPANet related research.
  * The early years - Jon Postel - primarily as a more formal record
    keeping system including some outsider protocol contributions.
  * The early IETF years - Jon Postel - on a handshake between him and
    Phill Gross to act as the publication stream for the IETF standards
    and documents (this is also the inception point for the ID series),
    roughly around the IETF meeting at NCAR.
  * The post-Jon/pre RFC Series model - from Jon's death in '98 to Bob
    and Joyce's retirement
  * The interregnum - Glenn's term mainly looking at how do we adopt
    Jon/Bob/Joyce's precious child and do it justice
  * The regency - Olaf's term while we're looking for a professional
  * The modern era - A professional RSE.

Jon (and Bob for that matter) were members of the first incarnation of 
the IAB as DOD/NSF contractors.  Jon, as RFC editor remained on the IAB 
during the technical committee period, and was only taken off due to the 
Kobe reorganizations that caused the current structure to come into 
being (but remained as liaison for the rest of his service AFAICT - 
although I don't remember him saying much during my first IAB term).  
The DOD/NSF/DOE and NASA continued to provide funding to the RFC editor 
(and to the IETF for that matter) until at least 1997 or so, and I 
believe were responsible for funding at least part of Bob and Joyce's 
time through their tenure.   At no time during Jon or Bob or Joyce's 
tenure would anyone have had the nerve to suggest that the RFC editor 
was subordinate to the IAB and in fact, it wasn't until the change in 
how we dealt with the RFC editor (RFC model 1, 2009), that there was 
anything more than these paragraphs in the IAB charter: (RFC 2850):

>   (d) RFC Series and IANA
>
>     The RFC Editor executes editorial management and publication of the
>     IETF "Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the
>     permanent document repository of the IETF.  The RFC series
>     constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards
>     and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering
>     community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the
>     Internet._*The IAB must approve the appointment of an organization to act as 
> RFC Editor and the general policy followed by the RFC Editor*_.
>
>     The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) administers various
>     protocol parameters used by IETF protocols, delegating this
>     administration as appropriate. The IAB must approve the appointment
>     of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of the IETF. The IANA
>     takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG.

I listed both of these, because of the juxtaposition of the IANA and RFC 
Editor.  While the charter says that the IAB appointed the RFC editor 
that was an error. In fact it was more correct to say that the IAB 
appointed an organization/individual to act as the publication stream 
for IETF standards documents (similar to the language related to the 
IANA).  The RFC series at the time of both this (RFC2850) document and 
previous IAB charter documents was a contract work product of the ISI 
paid for in whole or in part by the US Government and had existed in 
that form since the transition from Steve Crocker to Jon at ISI.  When 
we stood up the RFC Model 1, I believe ISI ended up writing the IETF a 
quit-claim for the RFC Series name and IPR.

In other words, the RFC editor prior to 2009 was not subordinate to the 
IAB, even if the RFC Editor had been "demoted" to just a liaison due to 
the Kobe changes.

> the RSE ought to be picked by nomcom.  I'm not too sure that is

This is a either-or fallacy argument that I hope won't be repeated.   It 
makes even less sense for the Nomcom to make the RSE selection than what 
the IAB is currently proposing.  I won't repeat for the third or fourth 
time why I think what the IAB is currently seems to be suggesting is 
probably also not the right approach.

In any event, until we turned this position into a contractor, I think 
the "co-equal to the IAB and IESG" pretty much described the 
relationship.  I think we need something like that going forward, even 
if it gives the current I* leadership some pause.

Later, Mike

---

From: Mike StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:03:09 -0400

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 29, 2019, at 21:22, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 

Ah.  I think you’re missing what I meant by “them”.   

So instead:  “it’s not so much what we call the committee as what the committee thinks the committee is allowed to do”    “It” and “them”  and “they’re” all refer to the same entity.  

> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 04:02:37 -0400

Andrew,

As someone with a history that is less distinguished than yours
but that involved working with the RFC Editor function (as well
as IANA) on policy issues for much longer (back to the early
1980s or earlier), let me supplement what Brian and Mike have
said from a somewhat different perspective.  

One must read some IAB and IETF documents that make assertions
of authority with a certain amount of skepticism.  Consensus on
the IAB or IESG (even if it reflects IETF community consensus)
does not make something true, any more than decisions by various
historical kings and legislatures that the earth is flat or Pi
is exactly 3 change the underlying geometry significantly.  Jon
definitely thought that he had the authority to simply refuse to
publish a document if its technical quality was unacceptable (to
him).   I gathered from him that he had exercised it a few
times.  Pragmatically, that authority derived from something
Mike mentioned -- funding for the RFC Editor and the Series that
was independent of the IETF and even of the Internet Society
after that was created.  That authority was gradually tempered,
in part because Jon saw it as a good idea, with the moves to
require that all documents (other than April 1st ones) be posted
as I-Ds before being published as RFCs and the introduction of
IESG conflict reviews of documents under consideration for
publication outside what we now call the IETF Stream.   However,
even the latter was advisory: as late as 2004, Section 5.2.2 or
RFC 3710 talks about the IETF making recommendations, not
requiring the RFC Editor to do as it wishes.   It would be
interesting to get Lyman's take on the assertion in Section 8 of
RFC 1358 that the IAB not only could appoint the RFC Editor but
could remove one by two-thirds vote, but I know that Jon didn't
think much of the idea that they might try.  Jon's supposed
demotion was, IIR, somewhat similar.  When the IAB was
restructured post-Kobe, my understanding was that Jon chose the
liaision-like role rather than an IAB membership.

So, whatever one decides to do, it should not be based on the
assumption that the RFC Editor function (and what we now call
the RSE role) has always been in a subsidiary relationship to
the IAB or even that the IAB has had the authority to hire and
fire for a long time.

best,
   john

--On Monday, July 29, 2019 23:04 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As ever, I do not speak for the Internet Society though I am
> employed by it.  I'm posting this note especially because I
> have certain experiences not widely shared: I was all of an
> IAB member, an IAB chair, an IAOC member, and an IAOC chair
> during some portion of the past where various bits of RFC 6635
> applied.
> 
>> The key word in RFC Series Oversight Committee is
>> "Oversight". What do people think when they hear "oversight"?
>> They think that a large part the job of whoever has
>> "oversight" is to review and criticize.
> 
> I don't think that.  What I think is that it is the
> responsibility of the oversight body to ensure that the thing
> to be overseen is accomplished according to some conditions.
> I'd like to think that the conditions are well-operationalized
> so that people are in a position to know about this.
> 
> The fundamental basis of oversight is the ability to decide
> whether a given overseen thing is or is not adequately done.
> At a high level, this generally works out to "hire and fire"
> capability.  (Note you can do it other ways.  Gating-function,
> for instance, could do this, but it seems unwise to implement.)
> 
> That capability with respect to the RFC Series Editor goes
> back at least to RFC 2850, which says, "The IAB must approve
> the appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and
> the general policy followed by the RFC Editor."  This is of
> course far less concrete than the full blown-out description
> found in RFC 6635.  But the basic rule is already there.
> 
>> What if everything else we the same, but it had been called
>> the RFC Series Support Committee? And everytime someone
>> thought about or volunteer for or was appointed to the
>> committee they were reminded that this is about supporting
>> the RFC Series?
> 
> terminological change like you propose.  But I would like to
> suppose that everyone involved in the IAB, at least, and
> anyone I (at least) ever asked to be on the RSOC regarded
> their role as making the RFC series successful.  And making
> the Editor's general policy cohere with the IAB's agreement is
> no innovation from 6635: it's right there in 2850.  It was
> also in RFC 1601 and RFC 1358.  I am not too sure that the
> responsibility of the IAB for this issue is grounded in
> anything earlier than 1358, but I'm also not sure that a
> responsibility that has been repeatedly affirmed in print
> since 1992 is one that we can assume is inoperative.
> 
> Elsewhere, Mike StJohns has claimed, "This is a senior person
> who really should be co-equal with the IAB and IESG."  I do
> not find the documented tradition that suggests this is true.
> On the contrary, I can find documents stretching back to at
> least 1992 (where I stopped digging) suggesting that the RSE
> is in fact subordinate to the IAB. That is not to suggest the
> relationship is some sort of directive-management one.  In my
> current job, I have plenty of colleagues who know more about
> their area than I do (i.e. all of them), yet I am responsible
> for their direction and in this formal sense they are
> "subordinate" to me.  If any of them messes up, they are not
> responsible to my board: I am.  Co-equal suggests that perhaps

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:05:55 +0100

Hiya,

On 30/07/2019 06:03, Mike StJohns wrote:
> So instead:  “it’s not so much what we call the committee as what
> the committee thinks the committee is allowed to do”    “It”
> and “them”  and “they’re” all refer to the same entity.
Fair enough. I misinterpreted your point. Sorry
about that and for the snark accusation.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:11:45 +0200

Hi Brian and Andrew,

> On 30 Jul 2019, at 05:53, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegial <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegial>)

My memory aligns pretty well with what Mike wrote, and I would add a bit of flavor.

Lest there be any doubt about who had the last word as to what went into an RFC back then, it was Jon and no one else.  Jon made this point very clearly at the 1991 Atlanta meeting, in which a shouting match took place during the plenary between him and Frank Kastenholz, chair of the Ethernet-MIB working group after Jon changed some variables before releasing the final copy.  Jon’s position at the time, after shouting expletives from the back of the room was, “I am not going to publish a faulty specification as an RFC.”  It was notably the “I” word that stood out then as it does now.(*). You can find the more politely minuted version of this debate on Page 29 of the Proceedings.

The IAB backed Jon up, probably because he was right about the technical error, even if the process wasn’t well defined.  And so that did lead to a discussion about the IAB’s role in the process, well prior to the Kobe Cabal and Boston Massacre; but in my memory, neither Jon nor Bob wavered from their positions that they were final arbiters over the series, though neither actively sought confrontation with the IETF or the IAB, but instead sought to facilitate the organization’s goals.  The limits of the RFC Editor’s authority has never really tested.

This trip through memory lane explains the past, but doesn’t dictate the future.

Eliot
(*) This, by the way, was my introduction to Jon Postel.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:18:01 -0700 (PDT)

Inline.

> policy followed by the RFC Editor." This was not an accident of drafting.

I was on the IAB at the time this document was developed and remember the
disussions. This distinction was intentional.

> I think we got this wrong and now we are paying the price.

I am in complete agreement with Brian on this.

> underlines and guarantees the independence of the RFC Series and its Editor.

Agreed, although it isn't clear to me that all of this can wait for the
long term.

> people that they had oversight, we unintentionally set the scene for

Indeed we did.

				Ned

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:46:51 -0400

I find the most enjoyable work environments are those in which people are
treated as peers.  I am a bit shocked that there is discussion about people
being "subordinate" when they are experts in their field and extremely well
regarded.  Perhaps we could get beyond the general behavior issues if
everyone took on the attitude that they are working with peers, be that the
IAB to IESG to RSE to IETF secretariat or any of those with the community
participants.  When in an I* role, it is well known that you will fold back
into the community at some point and you are a peer, just with a current
role to serve (at the pleasure of the community).  If you are then
appointed to a another role, WG chair, etc., you should expect to work with
chairs as peers and WG members as peers (many of them are likely far more
senior in day jobs anyway).  I'm generalizing this as the thought process
trickles and has a bigger impact not just on the RSE and finding the best
fit going forward, but on the community as a whole.  It works better when
we all regard each other as peers, IMO.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:02:30 -0700

On 7/30/2019 4:11 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> ...
>
> *_Lest there be any doubt about who had the last word as to what went
> into an RFC back then, it was Jon and no one else._*

That was true then, in 1991. But that power did not last, and after 1992
it was effectively withdrawn.

>   Jon made this point very clearly at the 1991 Atlanta meeting, in
> which a shouting match took place during the plenary between him and
> Frank Kastenholz, chair of the Ethernet-MIB working group after Jon
> changed some variables before releasing the final copy.  Jon’s
> position at the time, after shouting expletives from the back of the
> room was, “I am not going to publish a faulty specification as an
> RFC.”  It was notably the “*I*” word that stood out then as it does
> now.(*). You can find the more politely minuted version of this debate
> on Page 29 of the Proceedings. 

This was also a hot topic during the next meeting, in 1991 in Santa Fe.
And indeed, one of the debate in the meeting was whether "we should get
rid of the IAB".

>
> The IAB backed Jon up, probably because he was right about the
> technical error, even if the process wasn’t well defined.  And so that
> *did* lead to a discussion about the IAB’s role in the process, well
> prior to the Kobe Cabal and Boston Massacre; but in my memory, neither
> Jon nor Bob wavered from their positions that they were final arbiters
> over the series, though neither actively sought confrontation with the
> IETF or the IAB, but instead sought to facilitate the organization’s
> goals.  The limits of the RFC Editor’s authority has never really tested.

That is not my understanding. In fact, the post Kobe reaction was pretty
much informed by the Ethernet event. A lot of the debate was about the
checks and balance of the IETF, and specifically whether and how the
consensus of a working group could be overwritten. In the pre-Kobe
organization, the IAB was on top, and the IETF was defined very much as
an activity organized and supervised by the IAB. The RFC Editor was part
of that organization, definitely on top of the working group.

Post Kobe, that changed. The IAB's powers were pretty much vacated. The
power to review and approve standard track RFC was moved to the IESG,
which itself was constrained by process. The community did not want to
have some external authority exert arbitrary power, whatever the
curriculum and historical achievements of this authority. So there is a
reason why none of RFC editors ever tried to block the publication of an
IESG-approved RFC. They simply do not have that power. It was removed in
the post 1992 organization.

The RFC editor, and now the stream editor, do on the other have the
power to publish RFC that the IESG does not approve. I personally think
it is an important parts of the process, to balance the power of working
groups and the IESG and ensure that a diversity of opinions can be
expressed. That's pretty much the point that was reaffirmed in RFC 1796.

> This trip through memory lane explains the past, but doesn’t dictate

Absolutely. The main focus of the IETF ought to be the future, not the
past. The past provides us with guiding principle, open standards for an
open Internet. But the present story is one of gradual shrinkage. The
IETF gave up standardizing the web, the mobile networks, or the access
networks. We have a hard time bringing in new work that instead develops
in open source projects. In general, we have a hard time attracting
young people. If the trend continues, the IETF will continue shrinking
and concentrate on core protocols like IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, TLS and HTTP,
until some enterprising groups start chipping at that too. As the IETF
influence diminishes, so will the importance of the RFC series. I don't
think we are going to solve that by having our eyes fixated on the past
glories of the 80's.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:55:42 -0400

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:29 PM Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> *Lest there be any doubt about who had the last word as to what went into
> an RFC back then, it was Jon and no one else.*
>
>   Jon made this point very clearly at the 1991 Atlanta meeting, in which a
> shouting match took place during the plenary between him and Frank
> Kastenholz, chair of the Ethernet-MIB working group after Jon changed some
> variables before releasing the final copy.  Jon’s position at the time,
> after shouting expletives from the back of the room was, “I am not going to
> publish a faulty specification as an RFC.”  It was notably the “*I*” word
> that stood out then as it does now.(*). You can find the more politely
> minuted version of this debate on Page 29 of the Proceedings.
>
> And indeed, one of the debate in the meeting was whether "we should get rid
> of the IAB".
>
>
> The IAB backed Jon up, probably because he was right about the technical
> error, even if the process wasn’t well defined.  And so that *did* lead
> to a discussion about the IAB’s role in the process, well prior to the Kobe
> Cabal and Boston Massacre; but in my memory, neither Jon nor Bob wavered
> from their positions that they were final arbiters over the series, though
> neither actively sought confrontation with the IETF or the IAB, but instead
> sought to facilitate the organization’s goals.  The limits of the RFC
> Editor’s authority has never really tested.
>
> organization, the IAB was on top, and the IETF was defined very much as an
> activity organized and supervised by the IAB. The RFC Editor was part of
> that organization, definitely on top of the working group.
>
> power to review and approve standard track RFC was moved to the IESG, which
> itself was constrained by process. The community did not want to have some
> external authority exert arbitrary power, whatever the curriculum and
> historical achievements of this authority. So there is a reason why none of
> RFC editors ever tried to block the publication of an IESG-approved RFC.
> They simply do not have that power. It was removed in the post 1992
> organization.
>
> The RFC editor, and now the stream editor, do on the other have the power
> to publish RFC that the IESG does not approve. I personally think it is an
> important parts of the process, to balance the power of working groups and
> the IESG and ensure that a diversity of opinions can be expressed. That's
> pretty much the point that was reaffirmed in RFC 1796.
>
>
> open Internet. But the present story is one of gradual shrinkage. The IETF
> gave up standardizing the web, the mobile networks, or the access networks.
> We have a hard time bringing in new work that instead develops in open
> source projects. In general, we have a hard time attracting young people.
> If the trend continues, the IETF will continue shrinking and concentrate on
> core protocols like IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, TLS and HTTP, until some
> enterprising groups start chipping at that too. As the IETF influence
> diminishes, so will the importance of the RFC series. I don't think we are
> going to solve that by having our eyes fixated on the past glories of the
> 80's.
>

The IETF could stop treating newcomers as subordinate and thus inferior and
instead consider work that's been outside of current participants purview
more openly to cultivate it and they may try harder to then bring that work
in.  I've seen several recent cases where work was not encouraged despite
interest, where it should be cultivated instead of turned away.  This is
getting onto a separate topic, but goes back to treatment of participants
across the board.  In terms of protocols, we have quite a bit in the
routing overlay space and in security, there is plenty of new work on
endpoints (TEEP, SUIT, and RATS are all fairly new).

Do we really need to talk about "power" and people being "subordinate"?  If
subordinate were talked about as "in support of", I could buy into that but
not as "inferior" in which actions can easily be taken on their
role/position.  In all the presented options, there are ways to end
contracts or positions and there are ways to assume a high level of respect
for peers and instill that into our culture.

Best regards,
Kathleen

> -- Christian Huitema
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:06:46 +1200

As I said in my rant at https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf, "oversight" of the RFC Editor is not mentioned in the IAB Charter (and this was not an oversight, in the other sense of the word). So I think the name has been sending the wrong signal all along, and both the name and the mandate need to be updated accordingly.

We should take this discussion to the rfc-interest list now, IMHO.

Regards
   Brian

On 30-Jul-19 11:15, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> .