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

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 12:17:06 PDT 2011

On 13  Jul 2011, at 14:47 , Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> In this context, to me at least, "may" is an inclusive term and the
> groups listed are examples, rather like the phrase "topics include,
> but are not limited to..." that you find in Call for Papers.

Many people, me included, interpret "may" to mean "optional" or 
"discretionary" -- as indeed RFC-2119 also does.   So the effect 
(probably unintentional) of the original phrasing was more
exclusive than inclusive.

The proposed new text makes clear that there is a well-known
minimum set of communities that have material interest -- and 
leaves open the possibility of additional communities that 
also have material interest.  

So I believe the proposed new text more clearly and crisply 
describes "the broader Internet community".

> Whether or not the groups listed are materially interested
> will surely depend on the document in question, will it not?

I believe it does not depend on the document in question,
at least for the enumerated communities in the proposed text.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list