2012-09-12-rsoc-minutes
slides-interim-2022-rfcedprog-02-sessa-2012-09-12-rsoc-minutes-00

RSOC call, 12-Sep-2012

0. Agenda Bash

1. RSE Reports
   a. RFC Publication
   b. RSE Priorities & Projects
      i. Format update
      ii. Style Guide, parts 1 and 2
      iii. New Stream
      (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=newstream)

2. RFC Take-down policy

3. AOB

----
Attendees
* Fred Baker
* Ole Jacobson
* Bob Hinden
* David Kessens
* Ray Pelletier
* John Klensin
* Alexey Melnikov
* Nevil Brownlee
* Heather Flanagan


1. RSE REports
1a. RFC Publication
   * RFC Ed times are at about 3.5 weeks (avg)
   * see graph

1b. RSE Priorities & Projects
Format update

Document has been out for review to RPC, Nevil Brownlee, Dave Crocker
Items still to be added to the draft:

* table of definitions

* more detailed description of what and how Accessibility rules apply

* fix the references

* be clearer on metadata

What are the next steps?

* RSAG/RSOC should at least see it before it goes public; if it is
problematic to a significant fraction of that group then we can work
on it without public embarrassment; AFTER a short feedback period (1
week) assuming no major issues, send it out/publish it to the
rfc-interest

* what does HF expect to get out of a BoF? Frankly, just an
opportunity for outreach; may want to ask Bernard to post to the ietf
list and point them to the rfc-interest list for discussion (don't
want to move the discussion to the ietf list)

* how to move forward from there? the comments we're looking for are
"you missed it" or "disagree on this point" or "go for it"; expect
we'll get all of the above; (Nevil) let's pick one or two things and
implement those; (Fred) hopefully further next steps will evolve out
of the mailing list discussion


1b. RSE Priorities & Projects
Style Guide, part 1 (RFC)

How "done" should this be before releasing to the community?  HF has
incorporated several of John's comments and have a few more things
which have come in recently that need to be added… And there are
always going to be things to be added.  That's why we have Part 2.
But what should be the "cut off" point to let this go?

* do NOT want to have a BoF on it

* (Fred) want a mailing list discussion, hopefully brief, then publish
it; follow similar path to Format


1b. RSE Priorities & Projects
New Stream

Report from REFEDS

looking for someone to help me draft a "here is how we create a new
stream" draft

* (John) take this up a level; need a higher set of questions: what is
in it for us?  it would be more urgent if we were talking about an RFC
Editor stream.  Why should this get higher attention on RSOC and IAB?
Creating a new stream within the community (such as RFC Editor or an
ISOC group) than an external group; how would we turn requests down
since that would engender some pretty hairy politics? do not want to
put ourselves in a position to compete unexpectedly with the IEEEE

* Nevil - could raise the overall profile of the RFC Series; that
opens question about content supervision; right now only content
supervision is through IESG and they probably don't need the
additional burden

* John - probably a good idea in the long run; but if we're talking
"long run" what's the trigger? this is different from the Independent
Submission stream because of more content and editorial control; do we
have a mechanism for terminating a stream and/or firing those in
charge? 

* what if we asked the ISOC board to see if they wanted to publish any
of their particular publications as RFC?  That would be a different
set of interesting questions

* (Fred) agree that older RFC describing streams are not advised, so
would need to think very carefully about how and why we would do this

* (Fred) just put this at the bottom of the priority list; (John) if
you don't want this at the bottom of the inbox, need to present a
persuasive case to the IAB as to why opening this up is a good idea at
this time

* (John) the level of politics are potentially so deep that we
shouldn't take this on unless we have a compelling reason


RFC Take-down

do we need one similar for what is proposed for I-D?
we should be prepared if we should ever receive a take-down notice
for an RFC 

(John) this have only been talked about, and not much; this
conversation should be held with a copyright lawyer; need to engage
with counsel regarding realistic use cases; (Bob) would start with
legal@ietf and it will be up to them to find appropriate experts

** HF, Bob, John to have an offline conversation next week