[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10 (Ends 2025-09-08)

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

On 29-Aug-25 03:56, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> *From: *D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 28 August 2025 at 14:24
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10 (Ends 2025-09-08)
> 
> Eliot Lear writes:
>> Dan has requested that I post this question publicly (I asked it
>> initially privately).
> 
> As a reminder for everybody: Section 8 of RFC 2026 says that IETF "shall
> publicly announce, and shall maintain a publicly accessible record of,
> every activity in which it engages, to the extent that the activity
> represents the prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards
> Process".
> 
> My interpretation (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that by quoting that text you are implying that RFC 2026 section 8 requires any email sent by anyone related to standards development must be sent via a public alias.  If so, then I would disagree with your interpretation since it is certainly against the common established current norms of participants at the IETF. I believe that it quite normal and acceptable to have discussions (e.g., between authors in private or to try and resolve differences in private) before responding back to the alias with a collective public response.  

I think that's exactly right. IANAL, but I have always believed that the requirement in RFC 2026 refers primarily to *decisions* taken along the line of the standards process (is π stated to be equal to 3 or isn't it?).

> Whether that private communication strictly falls under the definition of a contribution to the IETF and hence falls under the note well is probably a gray area, but out of scope for this WG.

The definition of "Contribution" is at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html#section-1

We definitely don't want to relitigate that here, but a citation of the official definition might be useful.

      Brian