Re: "community" for the RFC series

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

One quick addendum: researchers and educators. I know people
personally who cite RFCs for research & teaching purposes, but
don't participate at all in I*TF activities.

Regards
   Brian

On 06-Oct-19 11:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 05/10/2019 21:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
> ...>
>> 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.
> 
> Heh, using my own argument against me, eh:-) That's fair
> though. Both are largely but not entirely written for IETF
> participants. So yes, 7258 was written also explicitly
> considering how other readers might perceive the text And
> it wasn't just the editors/authors doing that, many of the
> (very many!) comments on the draft considered that aspect.
> I didn't check back but don't however recall any major
> change made for only that specific reason, it was more a
> case of re-wording, mostly for clarity or to avoid specific
> potential misunderstandings. I guess the same was true for
> 1984. The relevant "other readers" are pretty much covered
> by your list below, maybe with the addition of tech journos.
> 
>>> 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 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.)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>> 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
>>>>