Re: [Terminology] Do you intend to use draft-knodel-terminology as if it is the opinion of the IETF?

["Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

+1.
J.

From: Terminology <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Bron Gondwana
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:58 AM
To: Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Terminology] Do you intend to use draft-knodel-terminology as if it is the opinion of the IETF?

Just following up on this now that the IETF week is over.  While I'm aware that I can't compel you to answer this question - I think it is an important question to ask, and it's an important question to have an honest and forthright answer to.  So I am asking you both directly to answer it.

This question does go directly to the point of the independent series of RFCs.  As a place to keep the history of the IETF, of ideas considered and not ultimately selected by IETF consensus - and as a place for humourous digs at the absurd edges of the space we work in (the April 1st series) it's very valuable.

Documenting the work that went into draft-knodel-terminology as an independent submission as a historical not of a point in time may have some value - though I would argue in that case that what we should be documenting instead is all three of the submissions that were made (mine and Keith's as well) in a single "here's what was considered" informational RFC for future historians to mull over.

But to many outside the IETF, the difference between "Independent Submission" and "Cast In Stone Internet Standard[tm]" is not at all obvious, and the mere fact of having a RFC number lends gravitas to the topic covered.  So publishing this one set of opinions as "an RFC", and referencing said RFC to buttress debate outside the IETF, would be a disingenuous and dishonest representation of the IETF's name and reputation.

Hence my question.


Regards,

Bron.


On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, at 18:16, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Hi Mallory and Niels,

I made what could probably be construed as "an insinuation" in a recent comment to this list, so I figure it's only polite to directly address the direct question to you:

If draft-knodel-terminology is published as an independent-stream RFC, do you intend to reference that document in contexts outside the IETF, and make claims that it is more than your own personal opinions?

I would appreciate an answer on this direct question from each of you, in this public forum, where it is archived and can be referenced in future.

Thanks,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


--
Terminology mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology


--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>