Re: "community" for the RFC series

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 10/5/2019 3:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 05/10/2019 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> ...
>> 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 above is a good list, thanks. And I can envisage ways one
> might try look for feedback from those kinds of people. (Doing
> so may fail, but it's doable.)
>
>> The courts, when IPR issues come up. 
> I think I'd argue to not go that far on the basis that any
> court action involving an RFC likely already involves someone
> from the earlier list.
>
> So I guess the question is whether or not people starting from
> Christian's position find that a convincing list or not. I do
> think it is myself. Christian, what do you think? (Others with
> a similar position should feel free to answer too.)

I think that the list above is a plausible definition of the
"readership" of the RFC series. We have feedback channels with many of
those, and it would be nice to get more. On the other hand, I do not
believe that this defines a "community", and I certainly can't see that
as the basis for any serious accountability mechanism.

-- Christian Huitema