Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest