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

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 08:31:09 PDT 2011

On 01  Jul 2011, at 11:10 , Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Sending notifications to a broad swath I can understand, and probably even support.

That was my main focus, particularly where "broad swath" extends
well beyond IETF and IRTF participants to include other obviously
related parts of the broader Internet Community.

> But when it comes to consulting with such communities, and enabling such
> communities to be the final arbiter of policy, I do not see how to make
> that work with the broad swatch you suggest.  (It is quite possible that
> was not your intent, but I thought that those two sentences were the ones
> we were discussing.)

(It appears that what I was trying to say is not necessarily 
what everyone might have understood from reading my note.
My apologies for not being sufficiently clear and crisp.)

My suggestion was that when major RFC-related items are coming up
for discussion (e.g. the current draft), it would be good to:

	1) notify the operations and also the research communities
	   that such major discussions about RFCs were in-progress
	   (or coming very soon)

	2) remind those folks that the RFC-Interest list exists,
	   is open/public, and that it exists for such feedback
	   and discussion

	3) include pointers to applicable drafts/public statements
	   so that folks have some idea of what RFC-related topics
	   are active (then or in the near-future)

Now, this suggestion is NOT specific to any particular sentences
in this draft.  It might be useful to document the goal of *actively*
reaching out beyond IETF, rather than passively assuming that 
word-of-mouth will suffice, but perhaps folks think even that isn't 
suitable for this document.  (As the specific lists/venues/publications
one might use for such outreach will vary over time, it would not
be sensible to document a particular proscriptive list.)

Instead, this suggestion is general commentary about the current
process (which didn't appear to have such outreach -- as I also
participate in several of those operations/research venues myself
and haven't seen any notifications over there)  AND  also a suggestion 
about what ought to (in practice) occur going forward when major 
re-examinations of the RFC editing/publication processes occur.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list