[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Mon May 14 12:56:48 PDT 2012


It is inconceivable to you that there be a change in the status quo if some people dont want change?

So the idea of democracy where the majority get to make decisions must really warp your mind quite seriously.

I see no reason that the status quo have a privileged position. Clearly there has to be consensus that an alternative is better. But consensus need not mean unanimity. 

There were many folk who thought it inconceivable gays could serve in the us military not so long ago.


Sent from my iPad

On May 14, 2012, at 15:26, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:

> On 14 May 2012, at 14:05 , Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
>>> As long as all of this happens with IETF-wide rough consensus in the end it's all good.
> 
>> No, the RFC Editor is tasked to look beyond the IETF-wide consensus:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> The RSE is expected to also engage with
>>   other users of the RFC series, in particular with the consumers of
>>   these documents such as those people who use them to specify
>>   products, write code, test behaviors, or other related activities.
> 
> The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure that if the RFC Editor puts forward a good proposal, that also takes into consideration stakeholders beyond the IETF, the IETF can reach rough consensus on that proposal.
> 
> The situation where the RFC format is changed while there is significant opposition to the new format within the IETF (i.e., != rough consensus) is inconceivable to me. And the situation where the format is changed without something resembling IETF-wide last call would be highly undesirable, in my opinion.
> 
>> You are currently observing consultation and from what I see the RFC editor is taking into account a large range of diametrically opposing input
> 
> I don't think the input is all that diametrically opposing, unless I'm misreading things there is workable overlap between the positions of different people participating in this discussion.
> 
>> But, if you have any indication that process is not implemented as expected, then the ultimate authority is the IAB.
> 
> Like I said, I wasn't saying Heather isn't doing a good job. I'll be very happy if it turns out my process concerns are completely unwarranted.
> _______________________________________________
> 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