Re: [arch-d] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 23 January 2020 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A310C12003E for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:28:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8r5uIkLBBZlI for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FBD12001E for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 00NBSKjl003112 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:28:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1579778912; x=1579865312;; bh=BpIVQTTqUro+XsJ5VldEWcbOPmCzMScFNl0XA/4cTY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=USe1MsisKes9r3Lb+GRgEfMyKdS34G6Gz4AUSScq75kJSlN9PcRSDa4PSR4ZyAL+F oFCfDdW488RzV3KeoNAC8ZxUbapVAb7oOdx3GG78CLucAgpMQkPvCBn1Wthopa7lz1 Sfw6R/zDPt+hiur5Nf+fm+0ck4UKjM6JjSyu8ReA=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:25:55 -0800
To: Mark Nottingham <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] New Version Notification for draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:28:36 -0000

Hi Mark,
At 06:13 PM 19-01-2020, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Well spotted.
>I've modified the text in my copy:
>"Even before the IETF was established, the Internet technical 
>community has focused on user needs since at least {{?RFC0001}}, 
>which stated..."

Thanks for the feedback.

I took a look at -02.  I would like to clarify my opinion is not 
representative of the views of the users from any region.

There is an ongoing discussion in an IRTF Research Group about the 
third paragraph in Section 1 (re. it has unavoidably become 
profoundly political ...)

Section 3 adds a question mark on RFC 3935.

Section 4.1 uses the terms "broader Internet community" and "greater 
Internet community".  Do those qualifiers change the meaning of 
"Internet community"?  If so, why are they not used in Section 4?

There is the following text in Section 4.1: "Government 
representatives sometimes participate in the IETF community."  When 
are those representatives representative of end-users?

There is the following near the end of Section 4.1: "we should 
remember that the RFC series are Requests For Comments".  I requested 
that my comments on a draft be ignored as an IETF Area Director gave 
me a very original response.  If that were to reflect the Internet 
Engineering Steering Group's position on comments, I doubt that IETF 
Stream could be viewed as conducive for request for comments.

I agree that merely saying that something is harmful (Section 4.3) is 
not a convincing argument.  However, is it reasonable to expect an 
end-user to explain how the technical specification causes, or might 
cause, "harm"?

S. Moonesamy