On 7/4/2015 2:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> there are a number of people in the community who have very specific >> expertise in some relevant areas but who don't follow rfc-interest or >> who have stopped doing so. > > that is their choice. but when one votes with one's feet, one kinda > relinquishes the right to ex post facto second-guess those who stay > home. I think there is a more interesting issue, here, than might seem obvious. Certainly 'if you didn't show up, you don't get to complain' is a core IETF principle. But it is predicated on a significant expectation of isolated effect. A mailing list defines the topic scope and work within that topic is typically limited to that scope. Yes, a change to TCP affects everything sitting on top of it, but absent a disrupting change to its functional interface, the stuff above can reasonably continue, oblivious to the change. However some actions have broad /direct/ effect, far beyond the community formed by the normal list discussion group. These notably involve IETF infrastructure: formal processes, tools, and mechanisms. Including RFC publication. For changes in this IETF fabric, we need to go beyond the core mailing list and promote information about the anticipated change, to get a broader range of feedback. The change will affect the broader IETF population and the 2-week IETF Last Call comment window is too little, too late, in terms of substantive feedback. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net