Replying to Stephen and Keith: On 10/6/2019 5:28 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > So maybe the people engaged in the future RFC series editor > discussions should: > > a) identify sets of people like those discussed here where we > want to explicitly consider whether changes being discussed may > have noteworthy effects (good or bad), and > b) make some effort to try communicate with and get feedback > from each of those sets of people, and, > c) even if we don't succeed at (b) we should make our best > guess as to what they might think. > > And then weigh all that alongside trying to figure out if > there's rough consensus within the IETF for whatever changes > look sensible. > > To me, that sounds doable (if a bit tedious:-) On 10/6/2019 6:10 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > I agree that the set of users affected by the RFC series is, in the > long run, very close to the entire human population. But it seems > odd that somehow more emphasis is being put on the importance of the > RFC series editor, than on the importance of the technical > contributions. If the technical standards don't meet the needs of > the broad Internet user population, how the RSE is operated hardly > matters at all. I tend to agree with Keith here. The technical content of the RFC series is by and large the product of the IETF. The RFC Editor function does have a significant impact on how the content is expressed, with functions such as format definition, copy editing, archiving and references. But in first order, the impact of the series depend on the technical value of the content, and also on its timeliness. I also agree with Stephen that it is important to identify the readership of the series, to collect feedback, and to make changes based on that feedback. But in my mind, this is as much a responsibility of the IETF leadership as it is a responsibility of the RFC Editor. -- Christian Huitema
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
