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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 8/31/19 3:02 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> 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 understand that such objections were raised, but do not presume that 
they were correct.   Suffice it to say that the topic is controversial.

The more distance that exists between IETF and the RSE, the greater the 
potential for the RSE to work at cross-purposes with IETF.   I 
understand both pros and cons with having a separation between the IETF 
and the RFC series.   But it's not wrong for the IETF community to want 
to have a say in how its output is handled, and it's certainly not wrong 
for the IETF community to want to discuss it.

Keith