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
[email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
