On 10/5/2019 3:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hiya, > > On 05/10/2019 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > ... >> 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.) I think that the list above is a plausible definition of the "readership" of the RFC series. We have feedback channels with many of those, and it would be nice to get more. On the other hand, I do not believe that this defines a "community", and I certainly can't see that as the basis for any serious accountability mechanism. -- Christian Huitema
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
