[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 
even support.

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.)

Yours,
Joel

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
> 	deliberations).
>
> 	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.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list