[rfc-i] [IAB] path forward with RFC 3932bis

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Wed Sep 23 05:05:12 PDT 2009

--On Wednesday, September 23, 2009 08:02 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> I came up with some ways of changing the text, e.g., just
> saying "work done in the IETF" and dropping the word
> "community". However, is not clear to me that any other words
> couldn't be misunderstood in the similar manner. In addition,
> if we dropped the word community, would this mean that a BOF
> that is about to be chartered as an official working group
> would not count as an IETF activity yet?

For better or worse, a group that is putting together a BOF
under current rules -- applications, posting of draft agendas
and sometimes even charters, etc.-- represents considerable work
"done in the IETF.  One that is about to be chartered is even
further along.   The problem area, wrt either the IRTF or
Independent Submissions, is when someone has sort of started
thinking that it might be a good idea for the IETF to do some
work in the area... someday.   That isn't "work in the IETF"
because no real work has been done and the text doesn't say
"speculation about possible work in the IETF".

Expanding to "the IETF community" might bring in the
speculations, organizations that use IETF documents but are not
the IETF itself, etc.

There is obviously still a gray area there, but I'm inclined to
trust the IESG's discretion -- and the problem resolution
procedure-- rather than trying to nail down every boundary case.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list