Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 8/31/19 1:15 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> It's not easy to think of a topic more important to the future of IETF 
> than the manner in which its output is published.   To suggest that 
> this topic should not be discussed in IETF, but should instead be 
> discussed in a venue outside of IETF, defies all logic. 


I think this overstates things a bit.

One of the key objections that was repeatedly raised regarding the 
RFCPLUSPLUS BOF was that it took place within the context of IETF 
process, and since it had implications on streams other than the IESG 
stream, ran the risk of overstepping its bounds [1]. I believe it's 
pretty clear, even ignoring RFC 3005's "well-established list" clause, 
that whatever sincere concerns existed about proposing changes to the 
RFC Editor function solely within the IETF process back then must 
necessarily translate to holding a more existential discussion about the 
future of that function on an IETF mailing list list.

To be clear, I suggested to the SAA that the conversation had this very 
risk of overstepping the bounds of the IETF's purview, as was clearly 
communicated by the community during that BOF. Any criticism of this 
logic should be directed at me rather than him.

/a

____
[1] There were many such comments, both on-list and at the microphone. 
This one is representative: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/jQHmeaGqN231LNIPfCQwpeUIxds