Eric,
On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:05 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.
The IETF did not publish it, the RFC-Editor published it.
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?
Anyone who actually read the document. If we are going to worry about what
people think who don't read our documents, we should stop now.
Bob
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