Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
MAAWG will insist on keeping this. The primary purpose, in my mind, is
to show that even though this wasn't written within the IETF it was
still written by people who really do know what they're talking about.
I support its inclusion based on this, and simply to provide some context about what MAAWG is. To
Frank's comment, I suggest changing "the largest" to "a large", and leaving the
rest as-is. If people really hate its placement up-front, perhaps it could appear in an appendix
instead, but I'm fine with it where it is.
I don't think the IETF needs to be too worried about publishing an
externally-generated document as an RFC given that it's Informational only, and
is directly related to work that is going on in a current working group. I
suspect it would be more of a concern if it were re-publishing something onto
the Standards Track without sending it through a working group first.
Funny thing these days, FAST TRACK "Information Only" I-Ds tend to
used to "influence" direction, changed things, even charters or become
something else to ram down people's throats.
Exceptions should not be allowed. MAAWG is a specific organization
that is most likely 0.0001% of the total IETF population - special
memberships should not be used to influence the IETF or its medium
begin to be become eyeballs for MAAWG advertising.
It smells with ETHICS issues. Better to keep out.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf