Leslie Daigle wrote:
Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the
IETF family/universe/collection.
The important thing is that the IAB is independent in
its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's
whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to
be the key elements in your concerns of IETF "ownership".
draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 (now in the repository) lays out a
framework for the IAB to ensure there is a (broader-than-IETF)
community-defined RFC series, with community input and
feedback.
So -- it's a proposal for community-driven RFC Series
not under IETF (IESG) control.
So:
- the IAB is part of the IETF family
- draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 (surprise)
lays out a framework where the IAB
(i.e., IETF family) declares itself
responsible for ensuring broader-than-IETF
input/feedback to the RFC series
My position is that:
- the RFC series includes independent
submissions (at least at this point
let's assume that, but we - the non-IETF
community - may need to revisit if the rest
is not possible - which is why I'm including
independent(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org in this discussion.
note: it's unfortunate that this discussion
is continuing here, rather than there.
- independent submissions MUST NOT assume or
require IETF family control - either direct
or indirect
A board of directors/advisors is fine,
but NOT the IAB, IETF, or IETF family,
and NOT appointed by the IAB, IETF, or IETF family.
- independent documents MUST NOT be required to
include IETF-family disownership assertions
*independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf