On 2/12/2016 8:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2016-02-12 04:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's where these drafts have been discussed extensively. Note that
it's *not* an IETF list, because RFCs are for a wider community than
the IETF.
Brian
But the point remains. The feedback should be public; right now it is
not. I recommend to use rfc-interest instead of the IAB mailing list.
I think the original concern has gotten missed. The IAB's own direction
was:
> Please send comments to iab@xxxxxxx.
While the basis for that direction is understandable, it means that the
IAB did not direct comments to a public forum.
This is worth considering as a general issue, not just for the current
topic.
While I imagine there really are times that warrant not having a public
exchange, for communications from any IETF body, the default should be
to specify a public discussion forum for comments, not a
restricted-access address.
Otherwise, which public list to use is hidden (insider) knowledge,
effectively serving to restrict who participates.
d/