On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:42 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This recently came up because someone thought it might
actually be a good idea to do so to solve a problem. I do know of one
case where it was actually done.
...
The case that brought this to my attention, and prompted the document,
does not exist because the AD in question agreed after discussion that
using the possible loophole would have been a bad idea.
...
The other example I know of (the published RFC) is complicated because
there was a lot of politics.
More transparency would be controversial in the short term, but ultimately lead to a stronger organization.
From your notes, you seem to be trying to figure out if changing the
rule would create a problem. Given the existence of the other channels
for publishing RFCs, which are NOT affected by this change, I do not see
how it could be a major problem.
I happen to think the other channels are needlessly restricted. But I think that's because it's the "RFC" designation that matters, and the quality of the IETF stream doesn't sell itself.
thanks,
Rob
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
