Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

[Hector <[e-mail]>]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>> MAAWG will insist on keeping this.  The primary purpose, in my mind, is
>> to show that even though this wasn't written within the IETF it was
>> still written by people who really do know what they're talking about.
> 
> I support its inclusion based on this, and simply to provide some context about what MAAWG is.  To Frank's comment, I suggest changing "the largest" to "a large", and leaving the rest as-is.  If people really hate its placement up-front, perhaps it could appear in an appendix instead, but I'm fine with it where it is.
> 
> I don't think the IETF needs to be too worried about publishing an externally-generated document as an RFC given that it's Informational only, and is directly related to work that is going on in a current working group.  I suspect it would be more of a concern if it were re-publishing something onto the Standards Track without sending it through a working group first.
> 

Funny thing these days, FAST TRACK "Information Only" I-Ds tend to 
used to "influence" direction, changed things, even charters or become 
something else to ram down people's throats.

Exceptions should not be allowed.  MAAWG is a specific organization 
that is most likely 0.0001% of the total IETF population - special 
memberships should not be used to influence the IETF or its medium 
begin to be become eyeballs for MAAWG advertising.

It smells with ETHICS issues.  Better to keep out.

--
HLS