In 1997, D.J. Bernstein wrote a short note titled:
RFC submission: a case study
The full text of that note is available at
http://cr.yp.to/proto/rfced.html
D.J. Bernstein concluded his case study with the following
paragraph.
----
It's well known that the IETF is no longer the primary source of
progress in Internet engineering. The only respectable activity left
for the IAB, IESG, and IETF is to report what others have done. So I
don't find it at all surprising that the IAB and IESG claim to have an
open document series. Unfortunately, the claim is a lie.
----
Unfortunately the situation has become even worse since 1997.
The Non-IETF Informational RFC Publication process has
now become quite Complex.
It now has a Real component and an Imaginary component.
The Imaginary component is that the process operates according to
Section 4.2.3 of the Internet Standards Process (RFC-2026), where the
RFC-Editor is an independent entity and where the scope and purpose of
the IESG review is limited to what that section spells out.
The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes
whatever may want to compete with it or that it does not
like. IETF/IESG/IAB often inserts notes in Non-IETF Informational RFCs
which go above and beyond the scope and purpose of IESG
review. IETF/IESG/IAB often regards the RFC-Editor as merely its
agent. IESG/IAB has become a group of irresponsible volunteers who
consider themselves accountable to no one.
All concerned in this fiction: IETF/IESG/IAB cult leadership, the cult
members themselves, various behind-the-scenes puppeteers, and Internet
groupies appear perfectly happy with both the Real and Imaginary
components of this Complex setup.
I would also be happy if they would just acknowledge that the
Imaginary part is in fact imaginary.
...Mohsen.