Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 7/11/18 8:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12/07/2018 12:46, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 7/11/18 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Well, that's good to hear, but nevertheless it is an IETF BOF and that
>>> limits its direct input to IESG decision making (certainly not its
>>> range of topics).
>>
>> This assertion (which you've raised before) doesn't seem to serve what I
>> suspect your goals are very well.
>>
>> Based on this statement and similar statements you've made elsewhere, it
>> looks like you're trying to assert that there is no existing venue in
>> which the topic of multi-stream RFC governance can be discussed with the
>> community,
> I'm saying that there's no clearly defined and announced venue for that,
> except possibly [e-mail].

The BOF was announced on that list 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2018-June/010237.html), 
and the IETF itself is a non-member organization, so any such interested 
parties are free to participate. You seem to be implying that some set 
of interested parties is being excluded from the conversation in some 
way, but I'm not sure evidence supports that position.

...
> It can happen if planned that way. IMHO it has happened, for example,
> for the new RFC format...

The RFC format work was an IETF BOF too [1] (three, actually), and those 
specific BOFs resulted in input that went well beyond impacts on the 
IETF stream. I believe your original statement about the scope of 
discussions that can take place in such a venue is more refuted than 
supported by the precedent you cite.

/a

____
[1] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF83