[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-02 - policy authority

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 07:50:32 PDT 2011

Earlier someone wrote:
> The challenge which was raised is taht it is very hard for that larger 
> community to be fully consulted, and in particular it is very hard for 
> that larger community to be the "arbiter", since we have no clean way
> to judge what it says.

While I agree that it is hard for the *entire* community to be 
*fully* consulted, I also think it would be easy for the I* 
to improve their consultation -- both on the present documents 
and also on future RFC-related matters.

To give a few examples...

* Network Operations 
	It is not terribly hard to notify a broad swath of Internet 
	operations folks about this discussion (or future RFC-related 

	Short emails to the relatively small number of public *NOG 
	mailing lists around the globe would be simple, quick, 
	and would cover an interestingly large percentage of network 
	operations folks.

	The USENIX LISA conference has a significant number of
	non-ISP large network operators (e.g. universities,
	enterprises) participating.  So it would be worthwhile
	to try to reach out to them.

* Networking Research
	Similarly, contacting folks who attend ACM SIGCOMM 
	(i.e. SIGCOMM the conference) or who attend some other 
	major networking-research conferences (e.g. IEEE InfoCom, 
	IEEE GlobeCom, USENIX annual conference) would greatly 
	improve the research community's awareness of these discussions, 
	and this document, while encouraging their inputs here.  
	Such conferences likely have email lists for attendees 
	that a suitable note could be sent to (with permission
	from the list manager, of course).

	While network researchers overlap with IETF participants,
	but many networking researchers don't participate in the IETF,
	even while still being heavy users (and sometime authors) of RFCs.  

	One imagines that the editors of IEEE Network magazine,
	ACM SIGCOMM magazine, and the monthly USENIX magazine each
	might be willing to run mentions of this list and these 
	discussions, if asked.

	A brief broadcast note on the IRTF RG lists also would hit 
	a broader swath of interested people; many IRTF participants 
	are NOT IETF participants.

Ideally, any multicast email announcements of this work to these
other non-IETF groups would include a brief encouragement to share
the note with any other interested parties.

Now one would not need to do this for discussion of every minor
nit in future, but it would seem sensible to do this now (or
earlier) for the major discussions -- such as this discussion.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list