[rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Tue Sep 22 22:02:45 PDT 2009


Aaron,

This morning I reviewed the IETF web pages, the Tao, the IRTF web pages, 
and Wikipedia entries on these two organizations. The way this material 
portrays the IETF and the IRTF, I'm having little trouble seeing a 
problem with the phrase "... with the IETF standards process or work 
done in the IETF community". I do agree with you that it should not 
cover IRTF work. In particular, the IESG should not check for conflict 
with a research group when doing an 3932bis check for a document. It is, 
however, a feature that we cover more IETF work than just the pure 
standards work.

> Unbound it can cover much, much more than IETF standards work.  In fact,
> one could make the case that it covers the IRTF (since much IRTF work is
> done in the standards community.

Now I do not follow you. My perception is not that the IRTF work is done 
in the standards community. Unless, of course, you simply refer to the 
collection of IETF and IRTF meeting participants as the "IETF 
community". Or if you think of the many people who do both 
standardization and research work. In my opinion, the IRTF and IETF are 
still distinct entities, despite mixed participation. I think the 
definition of the IETF and the IRTF is quite clear.

> I don't believe IESG review should
> cover conflicts in the IRTF (or IAB or IETF Trust or ISOC or with other
> Independent Submissions authors...)

I agree, but I do not believe the words in the document imply this.

I came up with some ways of changing the text, e.g., just saying "work 
done in the IETF" and dropping the word "community". However, is not 
clear to me that any other words couldn't be misunderstood in the 
similar manner. In addition, if we dropped the word community, would 
this mean that a BOF that is about to be chartered as an official 
working group would not count as an IETF activity yet?

Jari



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list