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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 23 Jan 2020, at 10:25 pm, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thank you.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see a literal question mark near the reference in the published text document.

> 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?

They are contrasting the IETF community with the (broader, greater) Internet community.

> 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?

I think they're representative of governments. 

> 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'm not sure there's anything actionable in your statement here, so I'll just move on.

> 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"?

As explained elsewhere in the document, we don't rely on end users coming to present their case in person, as it were. 

Cheers and thanks for the feedback,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/