[rfc-i] Meaning of "IETF"

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Jul 1 07:21:16 PDT 2011

I have some concern with the wording being suggested here.  (The concept 
I agree with.)

The "Internt community" in the first sentence includes more than just 
the IETF WGs, the IRTF, and even the Independent stream.  it includes 
all the folks who make use of our RFCs, or whou could/should/would make 
use of them.

And I have trouble with mandating that the RSE consult with that 
collection.  As I said earlier, it is somewhat strange to make the 
arbiter of policy, and the group to be consulted, a group that you can't 


On 7/1/2011 9:40 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 7/1/2011 1:26 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> Making that distinction between IETF and greater IETF is also the
>> reason why
>> discussion about the RFC Editor constructs are not held on the IETF
>> mailinglist but here on the rfc-interest list.
> That we need to make the distinction between two uses of the same
> acronym is a
> point of continuing confusion. FWIW, I meant 'greater IETF' for this
> thread.
> We need a reliable and unambiguous term for the 'greater'.
> My own preference is to use the term "IETF" only for that more inclusive
> and
> broader reference, which would include IRTF and IAB and RFC Editor.
> If you look at an organizational chart for that 'greater' set of
> sub-groups,
> everything has a definition that permits this broader use, except for
> IETF Stream, and the title "IETF Chair"...
> And on the specifics for the wording about the RFC Editor, absent
> agreement to
> use "IETF" as the more inclusive label:
>> All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the Internet
>> community. The community is the arbiter of policy. The RSE must consult
>> with the community on policy issues.
> looks like reasonable wording.
> d/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list