Re: And a third [was: A couple of opinion pieces]

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

Skickat från min iPhone

> 15 juli 2019 kl. 20:19 skrev Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>:
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min iPhone
> 
>> 15 juli 2019 kl. 20:15 skrev Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:37 PM Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Skickat från min iPhone
>>> 
>>> > 15 juli 2019 kl. 18:22 skrev Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>:
>>> > 
>>> > Brian,
>>> > 
>>> > This is an interesting piece, and I share your assessment of the IAB's
>>> > situation in the late 90's. But I continue to be very skeptical of your
>>> > references to a "much wider community".
>>> > 
>>> > To assess that, I just did a small exercise of listing all the RFC
>>> > published in the "independent" stream in 2018. There are 14 such RFC:
>>> > 8507, 8494, 8493, 8492, 8483, 8479, 8433, 8409, 8374, 8369, 8367, 8351,
>>> > 8328 and 8324. 8369 is an April's fool RFC. RFC 8367 and 8369 were
>>> > published on 1 April 2018. I looked at the authors of these RFC, and did
>>> > a quick check: are these outsiders, part of a "wider community" or are
>>> > these people who are also contributing to the IETF. The overwhelming
>>> > response is, "insiders". Pretty much all the authors are or were
>>> > involved in the IETF, many of them with a prominent track record. There
>>> > are just 2 exceptions, a single RFC in which only 3 of the 5 authors are
>>> > well associated with the IETF.
>>> > 
>>> > There may well be a wider community of people who could publish
>>> > independent RFC, or for that matter who could participate in the IETF.
>>> > But data analysis does not indicate that these people participate in the
>>> > RFC series.
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> cf my post elsewhere on this list on how digital identitiy development moved away from pkix (and the IETF)
>>> 
>>> This seems like a perfect illustration of the streetlight effect (I admit I had to make google find the name for me). 
>>> 
>>> We have no knowledge of why other communities choose not to publish in the RFC series because we don’t have data about any other communities. 
>> 
>> This seems to presume that it would be desirable for other communities to publish in the RFC series.  (I presume you mean, "other than the IETF/IAB/IRTF community".)  Is that your belief, and if so, could you say why?
> 
> No I don’t

I should have said: ”not anymore”

> 
> A more interesting question is this: what happened to make the openidc (to pick a random example) not even consider making RFCs their publication ”format”.
> 
>> 
>> --Richard
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> qed - unless... you go talk to some other SDOs and similar organisations... almost like a liason-function might.
>>> 
>>> Cheers Leif
>>> 
>>> > -- Christian Huitema
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> >> On 7/14/2019 9:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> >> Various recent discussions here have made me think that the IETF is
>>> >> at a point where some fundamentals in the standards process, the
>>> >> publication process, and its basic organization need to be re-evaluated
>>> >> and perhaps changed. The goal of course would be to make the IETF more
>>> >> useful, not change for its own sake.
>>> >> 
>>> >> It's above my pay grade to decide whether to start an organized
>>> >> approach to this, but in addition to the two opinion pieces mentioned
>>> >> below, please also consider this:
>>> >> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CommentaryIAB.pdf
>>> >> This is about the institution, not the people. Please read the opening
>>> >> disclaimer, and of course comments are welcome, as always.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Regards
>>> >>   Brian Carpenter
>>> >> 
>>> >>> On 20-Jun-19 16:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> The first document is early input to the 2019-2020 NomCom and to
>>> >>> all those thinking of volunteering for it, or for any of the
>>> >>> open leadership positions:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Some Thoughts on IETF Community Leadership
>>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-community-leaders-01
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> The second one is also relevant to NomCom, but also to those who
>>> >>> will be involved in the process of identifying the future RFC Series
>>> >>> Editor, and to those who care about the IETF standards process in general:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Request for Comments
>>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-01
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Comments are most welcome, but these documents are both personal opinions.
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Regards
>>> >>>   Brian Carpenter
>>> >>> 
>>> > 
>>>