Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period
Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Fri, 04 October 2019 07:52 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35CB12002E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hXSawMYW6Ly for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75B1120018 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA54B81EF3; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94637B81EF3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v3s66bezhD_x for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out10.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.30]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 550CCB81EDD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse13.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.13] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx66.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1iGIN8-0000uA-7J for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 09:51:34 +0200
Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46l2BD5tnzz22JG for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 00:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.12] (helo=xmail02.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1iGIMu-0003qV-Mu for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 00:51:16 -0700
Received: (qmail 13223 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2019 07:51:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.102]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.56]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail02.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; 4 Oct 2019 07:51:16 -0000
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <394203C8F4EF044AA616736F@PSB> <4097464f-d038-2439-5ca5-70bac46b25ea@huitema.net> <69DAA6BBBE243BAD98926154@PSB>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFIRX8gBCAC26usy/Ya38IqaLBSu33vKD6hP5Yw390XsWLaAZTeQR64OJEkoOdXpvcOS HWfMIlD5s5+oHfLe8jjmErFAXYJ8yytPj1fD2OdSKAe1TccUBiOXT8wdVxSr5d0alExVv/LO I/vA2aU1TwOkVHKSapD7j8/HZBrqIWRrXUSj2f5n9tY2nJzG9KRzSG0giaJWBfUFiGb4lvsy IaCaIU0YpfkDDk6PtK5YYzuCeF0B+O7N9LhDu/foUUc4MNq4K3EKDPb2FL1Hrv0XHpkXeMRZ olpH8SUFUJbmi+zYRuUgcXgMZRmZFL1tu6z9h6gY4/KPyF9aYot6zG28Qk/BFQRtj7V1ABEB AAG0J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PokBOQQTAQIAIwUC UhFfyAIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEJNDCbJVyA1yhbYH/1ud6x6m VqGIp0JcZUfSQO8w+TjugqxCyGNn+w/6Qb5O/xENxNQ4HaMQ5uSRK9n8WKKDDRSzwZ4syKKf wbkfj05vgFxrjCynVbm1zs2X2aGXh+PxPL/WHUaxzEP7KjYbLtCUZDRzOOrm+0LMktngT/k3 6+EZoLEM52hwwpIAzJoscyEz7QfqMOZtFm6xQnlvDQeIrHx0KUvwo/vgDLK3SuruG1CSHcR0 D24kEEUa044AIUKBS3b0b8AR7f6mP2NcnLpdsibtpabi9BzqAidcY/EjTaoea46HXALk/eJd 6OLkLE6UQe1PPzQC4jB7rErX2BxnSkHDw50xMgLRcl5/b1a5AQ0EUhFfyAEIAKp7Cp8lqKTV CC9QiAf6QTIjW+lie5J44Ad++0k8gRgANZVWubQuCQ71gxDWLtxYfFkEXjG4TXV/MUtnOliG 5rc2E+ih6Dg61Y5PQakm9OwPIsOx+2R+iSW325ngln2UQrVPgloO83QiUoi7mBJPbcHlxkhZ bd3+EjFxSLIQogt29sTcg2oSh4oljUpz5niTt69IOfZx21kf29NfDE+Iw56gfrxI2ywZbu5o G+d0ZSp0lsovygpk4jK04fDTq0vxjEU5HjPcsXC4CSZdq5E2DrF4nOh1UHkHzeaXdYR2Bn1Y wTePfaHBFlvQzI+Li/Q6AD/uxbTM0vIcsUxrv3MNHCUAEQEAAYkCPgQYAQIACQUCUhFfyAIb LgEpCRCTQwmyVcgNcsBdIAQZAQIABgUCUhFfyAAKCRC22tOSFDh1UOlBB/94RsCJepNvmi/c YiNmMnm0mKb6vjv43OsHkqrrCqJSfo95KHyl5Up4JEp8tiJMyYT2mp4IsirZHxz/5lqkw9Az tcGAF3GlFsj++xTyD07DXlNeddwTKlqPRi/b8sppjtWur6Pm+wnAHp0mQ7GidhxHccFCl65w uT7S/ocb1MjrTgnAMiz+x87d48n1UJ7yIdI41Wpg2XFZiA9xPBiDuuoPwFj14/nK0elV5Dvq 4/HVgfurb4+fd74PV/CC/dmd7hg0ZRlgnB5rFUcFO7ywb7/TvICIIaLWcI42OJDSZjZ/MAzz BeXm263lHh+kFxkh2LxEHnQGHCHGpTYyi4Z3dv03HtkH/1SI8joQMQq00Bv+RdEbJXfEExrT u4gtdZAihwvy97OPA2nCdTAHm/phkzryMeOaOztI4PS8u2Ce5lUB6P/HcGtK/038KdX5MYST Fn8KUDt4o29bkv0CUXwDzS3oTzPNtGdryBkRMc9b+yn9+AdwFEH4auhiTQXPMnl0+G3nhKr7 jvzVFJCRif3OAhEm4vmBNDE3uuaXFQnbK56GJrnqVN+KX5Z3M7X3fA8UcVCGOEHXRP/aubiw Ngawj0V9x+43kUapFp+nF69R53UI65YtJ95ec4PTO/Edvap8h1UbdEOc4+TiYwY1TBuIKltY 1cnrjgAWUh/Ucvr++/KbD9tD6C8=
Message-ID: <371c3b14-8bfc-a476-3ff9-7268485bad12@huitema.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 00:51:15 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <69DAA6BBBE243BAD98926154@PSB>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.13
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.13/32
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.13/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0dWQ8c9lblW44odAlK6ziUapSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVUZbR67CQ7/vm /hHDJU4RXkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKywOmJyM1qr8uRnWBrbSAGDatr2qjVEYpI48T/8HRZsoW43 XeAVbFadXxNsR+jIm+4BcORxfCojcTOpEjtvWHp28q1o59HdRMLzBM53efbepjg9YkzbMy6DOYhG 3MUcvhrxNrJjiSXeBtvVVpEJHS+dAmbhVmchvTmdJsZb6qGbEiERbInMiTBIUBbQ/Dy6Ip6kVwvE dIyZUKS/jvHn0KYEoqf/sM47h7Y3aG3L65O7LK3YNUkaxwcDFTSxInbeuBfGeNNgcDKyXGQ2tooY RqxsZoF8ohh/W3XPHbTGICzfpSt+KEZh/JftCUy9pezIBOsUsPpc58VuG+EUygAJCjWDlgeNZk6u qb/LBnyl+1oGm4OzH3OFoMU+k8nTiF9GmnKdUZkNVyV9/iqJgrGMd/y4VDMv1b5a3y9lGk6Ly6eK pki09ntGtLgiy4PZyZ/bxCS/8I9Xzgq64xIOSIrKbwsPceAUju/P9oWWMV2b9i9ni6B8lTw+8Bla jhHdQsU8wHdWWltSP+KXgzs/kqg4dY6T7kwjvgakGYIZYDCiy9SFfDah2OarQpoaHzv1olSpJw0H mFDqewO9xyOqCYO8P1aHoFsHJr4UN7WB3/jYo91TSZoZSm/5QvgvQIo6FoHPL5CBk4QknL1NHAiI h0kG5nFSLliUiVMh7CIg6utoc4+oBQM7as6wreE2f8C7bo2P7aV45rtfwhdTllw/DTCYz+zDq3f/ o/NBjYefRHOvCgehrTwJWw42swm4bO6gacpMpzL7Q07TvrvSx9hUQuwqpZe1tnBP5jDnqq1Zyjj0 N6eKITVjn0ct4reaW46myUBetVNddn8KKfQU2n19Ayh48sIRmzvvJzEWC/ZHpFS+HYcdOon5y/vc IKE4+MoDT8NV3zdM7Ahub8TBeVhtYGLHDQnyEj+FTyUVIz4E3+N7ec+ThjDIZMcgCg0Vf6NxbsMa Z0R5yhTi9qm8IZJSHpFdJ5bb
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine9.antispamcloud.com
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment period
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, iab@iab.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
John, Your note deserves a longer reply, but I can start with a brief answer. Starting from your last point, I do believe that the Independent Stream and its Editor provide an important function in the standard process, both for checks and balance, so that independent contributions can be published in the RFC series without endorsement or agreement from IETF Working Groups or the IESG, and for providing an avenue for publication of specification created outside of the IETF. I have all reasons to believe that this process is working quite well, and no desire to change that. The principles of RFC 1796 are still relevant. I also believe that the RFC series is today pretty much centered on the IETF. Over 80% of the publications are in the IETF stream, 15% in the Independent stream, with IRTF and IAB sharing the reminder. But then, these last three streams are in practice just as focused on the IETF as the IETF stream itself. The overwhelming majority of the document authors also participate in the IETF, contribute to WG, write drafts, etc. The document themselves are generally part of the IETF discussion, even if they are research pieces or independent publication. These observations make me extremely skeptical about the supposed Internet Community that would contribute to the RFC series independently of the IETF. In practice, I don't see any evidence that such an independent Internet Community exists today. I have heard Brian Carpenter's argument that if there is not an authorship community, there is a readership community. That leaves me skeptical. Clearly, authors and publishers should care about their readership, and I wish we had better ways to assess the impact of our publications. But passive readership does not create a community, no more than me reading ITU publications makes me part of the ITU community. What creates a community is engagement, contributions and sharing. I see that happening in the IETF and the IRTF. I wish more people would participate, but in practice this means increased openness of the IETF, recruiting existing communities and open source projects, etc. The RFC series are part of our history and our tradition. Our tradition is based on solid principles, such as open standards, openly documented, easy to access, easy to read, well archived. Our tradition also gives us the strong "RFC" brand, which we would be silly to jeopardize with some kind of "new Coke" effort. Heather has done a lot of work to modernize the format, the reference tools and the archival tools without breaking too much from that tradition. That's great. At the same time, there is a tension between the tradition and the need to serve and recruit a wider community. Our document production time is counted in years, and that does not help convincing open source projects to work with us. Our documents are cast for eternity, errors included, which does not help the part the part of the readership who wants to implement standards. Implementing our standards involves a treasure hunt to find how many RFC have to be read before understanding the whole picture. And that's before we even consider the potential of confusion between standards, experiments, independent efforts, and drafts. The IETF community will need to solve that over time. I assume that this will imply some sharing of the work between the RFC Editor and the "superstructure" of the IETF, and I wait to see the discussion happening in the ad hoc working group. And yes, of course the discussion process should be open and fair. -- Christian Huitema On 10/3/2019 12:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > Christian, > > I just noticed that I had never responded to your note below. > It deserves an answer, particularly because I think you have > identified a key reason why various of us keep talking past each > other. > > Briefly and I hope correctly interpreting your comments, many of > us believe the RFC Series is an Internet Community resource and > publication series and that, when ISOC and the IETF took on > responsibility for it in several stages from the early 1990s > through 2007, it was doing so as, to use Jon Postel's language > form quite a different document, a trustee for that larger > community. It is obviously reasonable to question that role and > its ongoing appropriateness and to assert that, e.g., the IESG > should have control over what is published. I can certainly > remember discussions of that issue in 1994. We had them again > leading up to the publication of RFCs 4844 through 4846 in 2007, > and several times in between and subsequently. I think it is > safe to say that the community has never been in complete > agreement since the RFC Editor Function was separately and > directly funded by the US Government and probably not even > before then. I do not, however, see that discussion as "some > people believe one thing and others believe something else" or > "whether the RSOC (and, to some extent, the IAB) agrees with my > understanding of the role and function of the RFC Series". From > my point of view, the community was asked that question as part > of the "RFC++" discussion of somewhat over a year ago and there > was a fairly clear answer of "not just about the IETF" (both in > terms of the series and what things were called). If we > disagree about that conclusion, then we have another problem. > But, even if you (and others) believe the outcome of the July > 2018 discussions was unclear with regard to the function of the > RFC Series, I think we end up with two issues: > > (1) Where the RFC Editor Function is concerned, are the RSOC and > IAB responsible for fairly interpreting community consensus > (even if only EITF community consensus) and following it, or can > they reasonably go off in other directions without any > accountability to the community? > > (2) Given that the RFC++ effort was an attempt to redefine the > RFC Editor Function at least with regard to how documents are > named and that it clearly did not get [even] IETF community > consensus, is it reasonable to use Heather's decision to step > down at the end of the year (whether that decision came as a > surprise or was deliberately or accidentally induced) as an > excuse or mechanism for opening the question of the role of the > RFC Editor Function again in such a short time? And, if it is, > should that question be posed in a balanced way and asked openly > and specifically rather than partially hidden in the plans for > replacing Heather (whether temporarily or permanent, etc.). > > FWIW, there are many other questions about the RFC Editor > Function and the RFC Series about which assumptions have been > made for many years but that sensible people can argue are > obsolete. One that has been raised repeatedly (and that the > RFC++ effort certainly touched on) was whether Independent > Submissions are still necessary and appropriate given all of the > other ways by which information that comes out of the IETF can > be published. Another is whether the whole idea of archival > documents is necessary any more. Recent threads on the > rfc-interest list lead me to believe that there are several > members of the community who believe the answer to the latter > question is "no" or perhaps that the IETF model for > authoritative clarifications to standards-track documents is in > need of reopening and reconsideration. > > best, > john > > > > > --On Friday, September 13, 2019 11:00 -0700 Christian Huitema > <huitema@huitema.net> wrote: > >> On 9/13/2019 7:44 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> >>> The difficulty, which several people tried to get a >>> focus on (before IETF 105, at the plenary, and thereafter), >>> was the question of whether the RSOC (and, to some extent, >>> the IAB) understood (generally and consistent with community >>> understanding) the role and function of the RFC Series, the >>> relationship of the RSE to that function, the appropriate >>> interpretation of "oversight", some important management and >>> procurement differences between hiring and management of >>> high-level professional and, procurement of >>> easily-substitutable commodity items. >> John, >> >> The way you phrase it, there is an eminent understanding of >> the role and function of the RFC series and the RSE that >> everybody should agree on, and you suspect the IAB does not. >> That why you use the word "understood" in the quoted text. I >> think that vocabulary presumes the outcome of the ongoing >> discussion. For example, you and several others including Mike >> and Brian hold it as obvious that "the RFC series is bigger >> than the IETF". That was certainly true in 1981, but I am sure >> there are people who don't believe that in 2019 -- and those >> people are indeed part of "the community". >> >> You may believe that you have a superior understanding, but >> the correct phrasing would be "the question of whether the >> RSOC (and, to some extent, the IAB) agrees with my >> understanding of the role and function of the RFC Series". > > > _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Eliot Lear
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] New proposal/New SOW comment p… Jim Schaad
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period Sarah Banks
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Brian E Carpenter
- [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series (was: Re: … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series (was: … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] New proposal/New SOW comment pe… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Leif Johansson
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] "community" for the RFC series Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] "community" for the RFC series Colin Perkins