[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority
ole at cisco.com
Wed Jul 13 11:47:37 PDT 2011
This may be a matter of how one reads the English language, and I
appreciate that neither Olaf nor myself have the advantage (or not)
of being native speakers.
In this context, to me at least, "may" is an inclusive term and the
groups listed are examples, rather like the phrase "topics include,
but are not limited to..." that you find in Call for Papers.
Whether or not the groups listed are materially interested will surely
depend on the document in question, will it not?
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 7:19 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> > With respect to the specific <suggestion> bracketed text quoted above,
> > the word "may" towards the end of the 1st paragraph is problematic.
> > I believe that all of the groups listed after the "may" are necessarily
> > materially interested groups, while using "may" sounds as if they
> > might not be materially interested.
> While I did try to express that for some matters the set of groups
> might be slightly different than others, I understand that the two
> groups given as example are more often included than not.
> > So I would propose to rewrite the the 1st paragraph along these lines,
> > with a primary objective to have more clear and specific wording
> > for a very inclusive definition of "Internet community":
> > All decisions are to be made in the overall interest
> > of the broader Internet community. The RSE is responsible
> > for identifying materially concerned interest groups within the
> > Internet community and reach out to them. Those interest
> > groups include at least the IETF community, the IRTF community,
> > the network research community, and the network operations community.
> > Other interest groups might also be materially interested.
> WFM; although I would like to express that the reach-out bit is
> normative and the enumeration is informative. Not sure how to do
> Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest