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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bron,

[removed authors of the draft and the ISE as recipients]

At 03:57 PM 14-11-2021, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>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.

It makes life easier if a person is upfront about any potential 
conflicts.  I'll disclose that I am on the ISEB.

Many years ago, there was an attempt to shut down the Independent 
Stream.  I argued for keeping the Stream.  The argument, if from what 
I remember, was that it could be a yardstick to measure the success 
(or failure) of the Internet Standards Process.

I'll comment about the "disingenous and dishonest representation 
..."  Some participants stated that "the IETF is not the Internet 
police".  That is not accurate if an external publication is blocked 
to protect the IETF's name and reputation [1].  Adding to that, it is 
not appropriate for the external publication to publish an opinion 
which misrepresent the facts about the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Please do not read the sentence as a statement of support for 
publication of the draft.