[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority
ole at cisco.com
Wed Jul 13 12:24:27 PDT 2011
OK, that works for me, so long as we don't try to make an exhaustive
list of all possible groups, something which I think is not possible
in this rather dynamic world.
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, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest