[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority
rja.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 12:17:06 PDT 2011
On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:47 , Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> 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.
Many people, me included, interpret "may" to mean "optional" or
"discretionary" -- as indeed RFC-2119 also does. So the effect
(probably unintentional) of the original phrasing was more
exclusive than inclusive.
The proposed new text makes clear that there is a well-known
minimum set of communities that have material interest -- and
leaves open the possibility of additional communities that
also have material interest.
So I believe the proposed new text more clearly and crisply
describes "the broader Internet community".
> Whether or not the groups listed are materially interested
> will surely depend on the document in question, will it not?
I believe it does not depend on the document in question,
at least for the enumerated communities in the proposed text.
More information about the rfc-interest