On 8/31/19 1:15 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
It's not easy to think of a topic more important to the future of IETF
than the manner in which its output is published. To suggest that
this topic should not be discussed in IETF, but should instead be
discussed in a venue outside of IETF, defies all logic.
I think this overstates things a bit.
One of the key objections that was repeatedly raised regarding the
RFCPLUSPLUS BOF was that it took place within the context of IETF
process, and since it had implications on streams other than the IESG
stream, ran the risk of overstepping its bounds [1]. I believe it's
pretty clear, even ignoring RFC 3005's "well-established list" clause,
that whatever sincere concerns existed about proposing changes to the
RFC Editor function solely within the IETF process back then must
necessarily translate to holding a more existential discussion about the
future of that function on an IETF mailing list list.
To be clear, I suggested to the SAA that the conversation had this very
risk of overstepping the bounds of the IETF's purview, as was clearly
communicated by the community during that BOF. Any criticism of this
logic should be directed at me rather than him.
/a
____
[1] There were many such comments, both on-list and at the microphone.
This one is representative:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/jQHmeaGqN231LNIPfCQwpeUIxds
