One quick addendum: researchers and educators. I know people personally who cite RFCs for research & teaching purposes, but don't participate at all in I*TF activities. Regards Brian On 06-Oct-19 11:24, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 05/10/2019 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Hi Stephen, > ...> >> Let me try to answer this by example. Who do you think is in the >> community to which RFC7258 (BCP188) is relevant? Or RFC1984, >> for that matter. These may be outliers, but that doesn't take >> them out of scope. > > Heh, using my own argument against me, eh:-) That's fair > though. Both are largely but not entirely written for IETF > participants. So yes, 7258 was written also explicitly > considering how other readers might perceive the text And > it wasn't just the editors/authors doing that, many of the > (very many!) comments on the draft considered that aspect. > I didn't check back but don't however recall any major > change made for only that specific reason, it was more a > case of re-wording, mostly for clarity or to avoid specific > potential misunderstandings. I guess the same was true for > 1984. The relevant "other readers" are pretty much covered > by your list below, maybe with the addition of tech journos. > >>> ISTM that damages the argument that there's more than the >>> IETF involved - if we can't characterise (characterise, not >>> "count") the "who else" in some sensible manner then we do >>> kinda end up where Christian seemed to be starting from. >> >> The IRTF is easily identified. The various operator groups and >> the RIRs and their customers/members. ISOC and its chapters. >> The SDOs that we have formal or informal relationships with. >> All product developers and open source developers who implement >> RFCs. Government regulators (think cryptography, privacy, network >> neutrality). > > The above is a good list, thanks. And I can envisage ways one > might try look for feedback from those kinds of people. (Doing > so may fail, but it's doable.) > >> The courts, when IPR issues come up. > > I think I'd argue to not go that far on the basis that any > court action involving an RFC likely already involves someone > from the earlier list. > > So I guess the question is whether or not people starting from > Christian's position find that a convincing list or not. I do > think it is myself. Christian, what do you think? (Others with > a similar position should feel free to answer too.) > > Cheers, > S. > >> I don't think >> it's at all hard to cite large groups that are affected. What's >> hard is knowing when to stop. >> >>> And just to be clear, I at least have said nothing about >>> calling consensus for any such grouping. >> >> No, indeed not. Calling for comments is easy enough, but calling for >> consensus isn't plausible. But I don't think that's what John and I >> are saying. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >>> I think we'd be >>> jumping too far ahead in worrying about that right now TBH. >>> I'd first like to know the kinds (not numbers, kinds) of >>> people involved and then worry abut how they might be >>> consulted. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> S. >>> >>> PS: "ISOC chapters" (and I guess ISOC members if there are >>> some uninvolved in the IETF) is another totally credible set >>> of people that ought be considered. The HOWTO for consulting >>> them also seems easy enough which is good. >>> >>>> I don't think we should even be trying to >>>> determine consensus among ISOC members or ISOC chapters even >>>> though we presumably could get them enumerated if we asked >>>> nicely. At the same time, we know they are out there. We can >>>> identify many of the communities and at least crudely describe >>>> their needs. We should not presume we can identify all possible >>>> communities or get the description of any one of them and their >>>> needs exactly right. We don't even make that presumption about >>>> the community of active IETF participants and that is one reason >>>> we talk only about "rough consensus" and not "strong consensus" >>>> or "broad consensus". To those communities who are part of the >>>> global Internet community and whom we can identify, we owe a >>>> real, good-faith, effort to try to make educated guesses at >>>> their needs and to take what Brian calls an open-ended public >>>> service responsibility and what I described earlier as acting as >>>> trustees for that broader community. We also have some >>>> obligation to keep looking for and identifying those smaller >>>> communities and clusters, rather than, in the extreme case, >>>> either no one we cannot precisely identify or no one who is not >>>> an active IETF participant, actually counts. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> john >>>>
