Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor

Ran,

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> On  5 Jun 2006, at 02:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Earlier, Ran Atkinson wrote:
>
> > > It has NOT been the case in the past that IETF was the community
> > > in control of RFC-Editor.  In fact, that would represent a major,
> > > and in many people's view highly undesirable, change.
> > > Historically, RFC-Editor has served the broader Internet community,
> > > including but not limited to the IETF.   In fact, the RFC-Editor
> > > has existed since the late 1960s, yet the IETF did not even exist
> > > until the middle 1980s.
> >
> > Historically, yes. But I think we're discussing the future.
> > Nevertheless, I personally support the existence of an independent
> > submission mechanism, as part of a general pattern of checks and  
> > balances.
> > (See below.)
> >
> > However, I'd like to ask for a definition of "the broader Internet
> > community." Since about 1995, the Internet has been a public access
> > network, so I could interpret the phrase as referring to several  hundred
> > million people at this point. Since the IETF is open to all, I'm
> > puzzled how to draw a line around "the broader Internet community"  that
> > is meaningfully different from the IETF/IRTF/IAB community but
> > less than the entire on-line population.
>
> Brian,
>
> It is a fair question.  Different people might have slightly
> different formulations, but I don't think that those would be
> meaningfully different.
>
> Here is a starting point for a definition...
>
> I think that "the broader Internet community" at least includes
> folks around the world who are engaged in (non-IAB, non-IRTF,
> and non-IETF) Internet research and development or are academics
> otherwise involved with the Internet (e.g. through educating college
> students).
I wouldn't want to exclude the operational and implementer community
either. I think the phrase used in draft-iab-rfc-editor is probably
the best short form: "the Internet research and engineering
community." Note of course that there is no way to list off the
names of that community, and any one of them would be a welcome
IETF participant.

    Brian

> That collective group is not nearly several hundred
> million people.  Further, that group also has a RFC Editor relationship
> that long predates the existence of IETF/IRTF -- and  also has a
> current active relationship with the RFC-Editor that is separate
> from the IETF/IRTF.  Their needs primarily relate to a substantial
> and workable mechanism for individual submissions to actually get
> published in a timely manner.  As the IETF has become MUCH more
> commercially influenced over the past ~10-15 years, the non-product
> perspectives that such people often bring to the published RFC
> document series is increasingly important to the overall health
> of the Internet. IMHO.
>
>
> All,
>     It is not an accident that the criteria for candidates
> for IAB are different than for IESG.  In my experience, and I'm told
> that this is not a strange perspective, the IAB functions best when
> IAB has several members who come from the non-commercial R&D/Academic
> communities -- particularly members who are not particularly involved
> in IETF standards activities.  Those folks can bring a fresh,
> non-commercial perspective to IAB functions, including but not limited
> to advice to the IETF/IRTF or input to the RFC-Editor function.
> Historically, such folks have often done so.  As an example,
> Jon Crowcroft did a wonderful job, yet had not been active in IETF
> prior to his appointment to the IAB.  Of course, he was already
> quite well known for his Internet research before then.  For some years,
> I've been making this same general observation to the Nominating
> Committee.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran
> rja(_at_)extremenetworks(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf