Re: "community" for the RFC series
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 05 October 2019 20:05 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463A5120104 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqLlI2FK6ciG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C091A12012A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id y22so5994939pfr.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f0UR54nuBWJx6nKU73m4QHNFVLPQv2vGiZknU04WjI4=; b=TuwN5GOBzwoIFRzsUlP8ooXYhmmEskYom7hsy1k1jwvQvLtknW+pCROyXiNj62nrLh hLGfVhLaqUeS1YW8k1QAgfGiwee5PKI7cqHKJ1XphW7H+SOPEaqz5vNFh7yJQFwL7dGk d3PX8/P2V1iV7uNdAhJzBtu5UVJdUGX81Npfy6L57QQbjB9De81skhti5jO9wzB4XHd0 visPWEJSnMIjtA/UMKqgla2AVF1gPJbV05cUjrYbfNbFJZTnQTrie85EZXaZijPqMPDi /C2T7mbBnNT27r1Qvi/deNKmBFwWZU3QcfBYmkIgOizfYa3BZhI4cK5090nrkNqGGLiT HBog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f0UR54nuBWJx6nKU73m4QHNFVLPQv2vGiZknU04WjI4=; b=i82Bx1DCHDvu/XTFtseWYWhaPDo1AsB5f6IzOdFV9OsmJNOG/4ujhmUObRDio6TUM0 bmUQrxkXvfFSUCwngpB+tafBN2SzQ1AKeapBjlVF8Ta4c+QOvdMQxdq/A7IQxt4b0JIW 4lVJTP5f+81wZ17cMqJBXsG8y7zyBs2u+4KD94Up0BvvTWrhYQLS7yp+KGSmzSMG9FpQ rcWqKUbPY9wDNQCsayptpuMMpncC9kfAFcBnxR2UQw3VUymXg768OyXJ3nC5o9iT2Ysy 7Jw+TjBqIPFoooOoxM9dmkbZbYQye71EDa5u9hAhDMuZy+4gZqAwH4nqsWY65NV9y+1L RRjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXt72t7PRYe2dMMLCzsoppsgaGIpWi3k+T2tUQegp8vDcFu2yXO RK8AObpiG3EvuQ1ErD+q8Sy6ZXDe
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbF1jJCv2M1hQGF+o/bOIEYIPoL/mvqKvbcOLc5xNsOZfCXjnUjbM3nO6aasGFmJSy6FND3A==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1017:: with SMTP id f23mr21880270pgl.72.1570305931216; Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (233.148.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.148.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j126sm11338372pfb.186.2019.10.05.13.05.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Oct 2019 13:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "community" for the RFC series
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <394203C8F4EF044AA616736F@PSB> <4097464f-d038-2439-5ca5-70bac46b25ea@huitema.net> <69DAA6BBBE243BAD98926154@PSB> <750a842a-b527-82b9-e8b8-1d23fdc5cc72@cs.tcd.ie> <31b3720b-c8f1-3964-ae30-ce391007b3aa@gmail.com> <120cf3cb-31a6-7cc9-d6e3-7daee0f9d11d@cs.tcd.ie> <21c43d80-0e0b-4ee8-2cf6-232eb9b66f01@gmail.com> <66ad948c-e95f-e61c-20cd-c4376c393053@cs.tcd.ie> <c5765055-40e6-9e77-c090-e7a40f39c3a6@huitema.net> <3ea3fbe0-d307-03b4-ed78-757ee6c2e0c1@gmail.com> <4D2F30897EC9E2205E427D46@PSB> <47f240cc-dc70-20e3-ffe2-61daf700501d@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10948e29-37f4-b215-1b67-7add22356e15@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 09:05:29 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <47f240cc-dc70-20e3-ffe2-61daf700501d@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IL_UpxA-p1IOQXNS6zRfDpWJVL0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 20:05:34 -0000
Hi Stephen, On 06-Oct-19 00:20, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 05/10/2019 09:02, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> >> --On Saturday, October 5, 2019 11:07 +1300 Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On the underlying point - the fuzziness of the community >>> boundary - I really don't believe in magic, or that the >>> community we should worry about is 7.7 billion people. But we >>> would be deluding ourselves to think that we can count the >>> members of the community; we can't even count the members of >>> the IETF. So we really have to accept, IMHO, that there is an >>> open-ended public service responsibility here, not just a >>> responsibility to a well-defined closed community. And if an >>> obscure network operator in Northern Elbonia has a comment to >>> make on an RFC from 1969 tagged in the index as "(Status: >>> UNKNOWN)", that is automatically part of the community >>> discourse, even though we don't know which stream that RFC >>> belongs to. >> >> I think this is key although I look at it a bit differently. >> Nothing I've said implied that we should be seeking consensus >> of, much less speaking for, several billion people (nor trying >> to enumerate them). > > That's not how I read what you and Brian wrote TBH. I did > and still do think that both of you are saying that anyone > affected by the Internet should somehow "count" (in the > future of the RSE discussion) and ISTM that that does end > up setting up someone to grandiosely claim to be speaking > for the entire planet. (I hope none of us really want to > try do that;-) Again, I'd love to be corrected but that's > how I've read your and Brian's mails on this so far. Let me try to answer this by example. Who do you think is in the community to which RFC7258 (BCP188) is relevant? Or RFC1984, for that matter. These may be outliers, but that doesn't take them out of scope. > ISTM that damages the argument that there's more than the > IETF involved - if we can't characterise (characterise, not > "count") the "who else" in some sensible manner then we do > kinda end up where Christian seemed to be starting from. The IRTF is easily identified. The various operator groups and the RIRs and their customers/members. ISOC and its chapters. The SDOs that we have formal or informal relationships with. All product developers and open source developers who implement RFCs. Government regulators (think cryptography, privacy, network neutrality). The courts, when IPR issues come up. I don't think it's at all hard to cite large groups that are affected. What's hard is knowing when to stop. > And just to be clear, I at least have said nothing about > calling consensus for any such grouping. No, indeed not. Calling for comments is easy enough, but calling for consensus isn't plausible. But I don't think that's what John and I are saying. Regards Brian > I think we'd be > jumping too far ahead in worrying about that right now TBH. > I'd first like to know the kinds (not numbers, kinds) of > people involved and then worry abut how they might be > consulted. > > Cheers, > S. > > PS: "ISOC chapters" (and I guess ISOC members if there are > some uninvolved in the IETF) is another totally credible set > of people that ought be considered. The HOWTO for consulting > them also seems easy enough which is good. > >> I don't think we should even be trying to >> determine consensus among ISOC members or ISOC chapters even >> though we presumably could get them enumerated if we asked >> nicely. At the same time, we know they are out there. We can >> identify many of the communities and at least crudely describe >> their needs. We should not presume we can identify all possible >> communities or get the description of any one of them and their >> needs exactly right. We don't even make that presumption about >> the community of active IETF participants and that is one reason >> we talk only about "rough consensus" and not "strong consensus" >> or "broad consensus". To those communities who are part of the >> global Internet community and whom we can identify, we owe a >> real, good-faith, effort to try to make educated guesses at >> their needs and to take what Brian calls an open-ended public >> service responsibility and what I described earlier as acting as >> trustees for that broader community. We also have some >> obligation to keep looking for and identifying those smaller >> communities and clusters, rather than, in the extreme case, >> either no one we cannot precisely identify or no one who is not >> an active IETF participant, actually counts. >> >> best, >> john >>
- New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Matthew A. Miller
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW commen… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael StJohns
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Adam Roach
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Michael
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… John C Klensin
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Randy Bush
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Melinda Shore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Leif Johansson
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Bob Hinden
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- SAA Do's and Don'ts Michael StJohns
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Melinda Shore
- tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Keith Moore
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts John C Klensin
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing (was: SAA Do's and Don'ts) Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: SAA Do's and Don'ts Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Mark Nottingham
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Melinda Shore
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Rob Sayre
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Christer Holmberg
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Nick Hilliard
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Adam Roach
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing ned+ietf
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW co… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Patrik Fältström
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- RE: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: tone policing lloyd.wood
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Paul Wouters
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Doug Royer
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Joel M. Halpern
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Salz, Rich
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Stephen Farrell
- Re: tone policing Brian E Carpenter
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: tone policing Masataka Ohta
- Re: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Randy Bush
- Re: tone policing Leif Johansson
- Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Paul Wouters
- BIMI: Re: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Ted Lemon
- Re: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Stan Kalisch
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Dan Harkins
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Nico Williams
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing Keith Moore
- Re: tone policing Bron Gondwana
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael Richardson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Leif Johansson
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period (off-topi… S Moonesamy
- Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Brian E Carpenter
- "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc-i] … Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: [rfc… John C Klensin
- Re: [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- The IETF, Standards process, and the impact on th… Michael StJohns
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… John C Klensin
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Nico Williams
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Leif Johansson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Randy Bush
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: "community" for the RFC series John C Klensin
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Randy Presuhn
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series S Moonesamy
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Michael StJohns
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The IETF, Standards process, and the impact o… Michael Richardson
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [IAB] "community" for the RFC series Colin Perkins
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Keith Moore
- Re: "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter