> On 5 Oct 2019, at 20:14, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 04:20 AM 05-10-2019, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> 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. > > That's a good point. > > I went through some documents, e.g. RFC 6635 and the discussions which happened many years ago. There is the following in the RFC: "to better serve the communities that produce and depend on the RFC Series". I gather that the usage of the word "communities" is intentional, i.e. it means that there is more than one community. > > Is the IRTF a subset of the IETF? If that was the case, they can folded into one community. One side-effect of such a decision is that it constrains (future) decisions of the IRTF about its identity. We could hand-wave that question and deal with it when it becomes a problem. As I look back, I would say that this is why the IETF ended up with its inconsistent stories. The IRTF is not a subset of the IETF, although the participants have significant overlap. The RFC Editor and IAB have been careful to involve the IRTF in this discussion. > I assume that the IAB is aware that there are other organizations which rely on documents published through the Series. In my opinion, some of those organization might not agree to be seated under the IETF umbrella. I’ve certainly not seen any suggestion to 'seat the IRTF under the IETF umbrella' from the IAB. Colin > There was a comment [1] from Mr Johansson. There are a few persons on the ietf@ mailing list who are ex-IAB members. I have no doubt that they would understand what the comment means. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3lVQg1IX1HGjgT-ogevbLPHqyyc > -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/
