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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
> 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”.
>

Now I'm confused.  If it's not desirable for other communities to publish
RFCs, why does this question matter?

--Richard



>
>
> --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
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>