ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's

2010-09-08 16:09:39
s/Informational RFCs/independent stream/

If what you're after is RFC == IETF, shouldn't we be eliminating the independent submission process instead of informational RFCs in general. Things like RFC 3693 or draft-ietf-geopriv-arch, which don't specify a protocol, but describe an architecture, seem to properly be Informational, but still reflect IETF consensus.



On Sep 8, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Eric Burger wrote:

I would offer RFC 5211 is PRECISELY the kind of RFC the IETF should NOT be publishing! I can see the press release now: "IETF publishes IPv6 transition plan." NO ONE OUTSIDE THE IETF has a clue the RFC Editor is NOT the IETF. "RFC = IETF" is the *reality*, no matter how much we say it is not.

For that matter, would the world notice if the press release made the accurate statement, "The RFC Editor, who publishes all IETF protocols, publishes IPv6 transition plan"? What rational person would not make the leap that the IETF published the document?

For that matter, I'm waiting for the ISPs to say, "We're RFC 5211 compliant - we tested one IPv6 node before December 2009!" Or, "We're RFC 5211 compliant - commercial service is available in West Podunk, Elbonia, before December 2011!"

There are lots and lots of venues this document could have been published in, such as the IPv6 Forum, NANOG, INET, IEEE, ACM, etc. For that matter, it could have gone in Wikipedia. The world did not need the IETF^H^H^H^H RFC Editor to publish it, too. Ten years ago I might have agreed that publishing as an RFC could be useful. However, with a huge plurality of respected, non-protocol-publishing venues, all searchable on the web and archived forever (thanks archive.org!), all a publication like this does is dilute the IETF brand when we actually do publish a protocol or BCP.

On Sep 8, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:

Eric,

On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? Pre-WWW, having publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary protocols was certainly useful. However, in today's environment of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues, why would we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?

No, I completely disagree.

My personal recent favorite information RFC is RFC 5211. This would have never been published by the IETF (IESG, IRTF, or IAB tracks) and provided an important service for the community.

Bob


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf