[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Jul 1 08:10:01 PDT 2011
Sending notifications to a broad swath I can understand, and probably
But when it comes to consulting with such communities, and enabling such
communities to be the final arbiter of policy, I do not see how to make
that work with the broad swatch you suggest. (It is quite possible that
was not your intent, but I thought that those two sentences were the
ones we were discussing.)
On 7/1/2011 10:50 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier someone wrote:
>> The challenge which was raised is taht it is very hard for that larger
>> community to be fully consulted, and in particular it is very hard for
>> that larger community to be the "arbiter", since we have no clean way
>> to judge what it says.
> While I agree that it is hard for the *entire* community to be
> *fully* consulted, I also think it would be easy for the I*
> to improve their consultation -- both on the present documents
> and also on future RFC-related matters.
> To give a few examples...
> * Network Operations
> It is not terribly hard to notify a broad swath of Internet
> operations folks about this discussion (or future RFC-related
> Short emails to the relatively small number of public *NOG
> mailing lists around the globe would be simple, quick,
> and would cover an interestingly large percentage of network
> operations folks.
> The USENIX LISA conference has a significant number of
> non-ISP large network operators (e.g. universities,
> enterprises) participating. So it would be worthwhile
> to try to reach out to them.
> * Networking Research
> Similarly, contacting folks who attend ACM SIGCOMM
> (i.e. SIGCOMM the conference) or who attend some other
> major networking-research conferences (e.g. IEEE InfoCom,
> IEEE GlobeCom, USENIX annual conference) would greatly
> improve the research community's awareness of these discussions,
> and this document, while encouraging their inputs here.
> Such conferences likely have email lists for attendees
> that a suitable note could be sent to (with permission
> from the list manager, of course).
> While network researchers overlap with IETF participants,
> but many networking researchers don't participate in the IETF,
> even while still being heavy users (and sometime authors) of RFCs.
> One imagines that the editors of IEEE Network magazine,
> ACM SIGCOMM magazine, and the monthly USENIX magazine each
> might be willing to run mentions of this list and these
> discussions, if asked.
> A brief broadcast note on the IRTF RG lists also would hit
> a broader swath of interested people; many IRTF participants
> are NOT IETF participants.
> Ideally, any multicast email announcements of this work to these
> other non-IETF groups would include a brief encouragement to share
> the note with any other interested parties.
> Now one would not need to do this for discussion of every minor
> nit in future, but it would seem sensible to do this now (or
> earlier) for the major discussions -- such as this discussion.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest