Adam, > On Aug 31, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Rereading RFC3005, it says: The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The intended role of the sergeant-at-arms is for content that is is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. There was no “inappropriate” nor “pattern of abuse” here whatsoever. Bob > > /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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
