Hi, On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:48:51PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > RFCs in the IAB and IRTF Streams are not subject to some consensus process. > Does the idea [1] also apply to those Streams? That isn't exactly true. The IAB, at least when I served on it, did strive pretty hard for internal consensus on IAB stream documents. Moreover, since ISOC employees are not allowed to take any nomcom-appointed position under the policy, nobody employed by the Internet Society would be on the IAB. It is true that IAB documents sometimes include external experts, and if the Internet Society staff included people that the IAB really wanted as one of the authors of a draft then of course we would support the IAB in that desire; but I generally think that it would be better for the staff to provide (possibly extensive) commentary on a draft rather than be listed as one of the authors. The policy also, please note, is about the IETF, not the IRTF. Since the IRTF never produces standards, my view is that participation in the IETF is more sensitive than participation in the IRTF. And there are results of study or so on at the Internet Society that in some cases could best be worked on through an IRTF RG (gaia comes to mind), so it would probably be too great a restriction to make a blanket rule covering all RFC streams. In any case, since it was apparently not clear, the point of the policy is to apply to staff action within the IETF. There is some confusion about whether Independent Stream documents "come from the IETF", so it seemed wiser just to make an absolute policy about this while the relationship between ISOC and the IETF evolves. The policy is not intended to be making any comment at all about the Independent Stream itself. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan@xxxxxxxx +1 517 885 3587
