On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 2:53 PM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26.05.2026 23:31, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > There have been documents that were approved by the IAB and > at the same time, underwent IETF LC. > > But such a thing is NOT needed here since this is a community driven > process. All of these objections are predicated that this community > differs from the IETF community. > Well, that's in fact the rationale for the whole RFC 9280 process. However, my objection doesn't depend on it, but merely that the RFC 9280 process does not in fact demonstrate IETF consensus.
Furthermore, the IETF representative on the RSAB has the responsibility to > represent the IETF and to object to anything that would harm the IETF > stream. > As noted in my previous response, even if the IETF representative concludes that, it is insufficient to block publication. > Moreover, NOBODY has actually claimed any substantial policy differences > between the streams. But that's not the worst of it. > That's largely irrelevant to my point, which is about legitimacy of the process, as noted above. > The WORST aspect is that you and EKR and Rich are ignoring the most > important party:* the reader. * The reader needs a consistent > understanding of what it means to be an author without having to understand > the nuances of streams. > I don't believe that this is in fact true. It's already the case that the relationship between the author and the text is different in different streams because in some streams the author is largely the decision maker of the content (the ISE) and in others their job is to reflect some form of consensus (IETF stream). -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
