On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:20 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/5/2020 5:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
> draft-iab-for-the-users-02.
>
> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC
> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/>
>
> The Call for Comment will last until 2020-03-04. Please send comments to
> architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx and iab@xxxxxxx.
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should consider
> end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can be done.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Does this document represent an IAB consensus/aspiration or is this Mark
writing as an IAB member?
If the former, Mark should be listed as Editor, and the document should
include text indicating how the IAB arrived at consensus (e.g. "This
document represents the consensus of the IAB arrived at through
(internal discussions | discussions with the community | workshop
results | etc) " ). If the latter, the document should indicate "This
document represents the author's personal opinion".
Are there competing opinions on the IAB?
"The Internet is not for End Users" ?"The Internet is for Network Operators" ?
thanks,Rob
Hi Rob -
You may have an assumption that differs from mine to whit: "All documents published in the IAB stream represent IAB consensus" vs "A document in the IAB stream can originate from the IAB as an IAB consensus document, or from individuals within the IAB or from others that have information that the IAB that believes is important enough to bring to the attention of the community but that might not be more appropriate for one of the other streams". My assumption is the latter. The IAB has ... less? different? ... rules with respect to what gets published than the IETF stream, the IRTF stream or the ISE stream. I assume an IAB consensus on publication, not necessarily a consensus of the content of the document. I also assume that what the IAB finds important may differ from what the IESG/IETF/IRTF or ISE might consider important - at least at the time of publication.
For example - this could have been the first of two documents from the IAB - one supporting the proposition, and one arguing against. Or even three - the third with some sort of synthesis of the two. In otherwords, a discussion of architecture.
Hence the question of provenance.
Later, Mike
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
