Skickat från min iPhone 15 juli 2019 kl.. 20:19 skrev Leif Johansson < leifj@xxxxxx>: Skickat från min iPhone 15 juli 2019 kl. 20:15 skrev Richard Barnes < rlb@xxxxxx>:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:37 PM Leif Johansson < leifj@xxxxxx> wrote:
Skickat från min iPhone
> 15 juli 2019 kl. 18:22 skrev Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Brian,
>
> This is an interesting piece, and I share your assessment of the IAB's
> situation in the late 90's. But I continue to be very skeptical of your
> references to a "much wider community".
>
> To assess that, I just did a small exercise of listing all the RFC
> published in the "independent" stream in 2018. There are 14 such RFC:
> 8507, 8494, 8493, 8492, 8483, 8479, 8433, 8409, 8374, 8369, 8367, 8351,
> 8328 and 8324. 8369 is an April's fool RFC. RFC 8367 and 8369 were
> published on 1 April 2018. I looked at the authors of these RFC, and did
> a quick check: are these outsiders, part of a "wider community" or are
> these people who are also contributing to the IETF. The overwhelming
> response is, "insiders". Pretty much all the authors are or were
> involved in the IETF, many of them with a prominent track record. There
> are just 2 exceptions, a single RFC in which only 3 of the 5 authors are
> well associated with the IETF.
>
> There may well be a wider community of people who could publish
> independent RFC, or for that matter who could participate in the IETF.
> But data analysis does not indicate that these people participate in the
> RFC series.
>
cf my post elsewhere on this list on how digital identitiy development moved away from pkix (and the IETF)
This seems like a perfect illustration of the streetlight effect (I admit I had to make google find the name for me).
We have no knowledge of why other communities choose not to publish in the RFC series because we don’t have data about any other communities.
This seems to presume that it would be desirable for other communities to publish in the RFC series. (I presume you mean, "other than the IETF/IAB/IRTF community".) Is that your belief, and if so, could you say why?
No I don’t
I should have said: ”not anymore”
A more interesting question is this: what happened to make the openidc (to pick a random example) not even consider making RFCs their publication ”format”.
--Richard
qed - unless... you go talk to some other SDOs and similar organisations... almost like a liason-function might.
Cheers Leif
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>> On 7/14/2019 9:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Various recent discussions here have made me think that the IETF is
>> at a point where some fundamentals in the standards process, the
>> publication process, and its basic organization need to be re-evaluated
>> and perhaps changed. The goal of course would be to make the IETF more
>> useful, not change for its own sake.
>>
>> It's above my pay grade to decide whether to start an organized
>> approach to this, but in addition to the two opinion pieces mentioned
>> below, please also consider this:
>> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf
>> This is about the institution, not the people. Please read the opening
>> disclaimer, and of course comments are welcome, as always.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian Carpenter
>>
>>> On 20-Jun-19 16:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The first document is early input to the 2019-2020 NomCom and to
>>> all those thinking of volunteering for it, or for any of the
>>> open leadership positions:
>>>
>>> Some Thoughts on IETF Community Leadership
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-community-leaders-01
>>>
>>> The second one is also relevant to NomCom, but also to those who
>>> will be involved in the process of identifying the future RFC Series
>>> Editor, and to those who care about the IETF standards process in general:
>>>
>>> Request for Comments
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-01
>>>
>>> Comments are most welcome, but these documents are both personal opinions.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Brian Carpenter
>>>
>
|
