On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -0000, Mohsen BANAN-Public
<public(_at_)mohsen(_dot_)banan(_dot_)1(_dot_)byname(_dot_)net> said:
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
Of course it has full ownership. They're *IETF* RFCs after all. Just like
Microsoft claims ownership of Microsoft documentation, and the ITU claims
ownership of its recommendations, and the W3C claims ownership of its stuff.
whatever may want to compete with it or that it does not
Umm.. "quash"? Recently, we've even handed off HTML to the W3C.
We've not managed to get rid of the ITU, or IEEE, or ANSI yet either.
like. IETF/IESG/IAB often inserts notes in Non-IETF Informational RFCs
which go above and beyond the scope and purpose of IESG
Be glad that the RFC's don't get the markup they so often richly deserve.
review. IETF/IESG/IAB often regards the RFC-Editor as merely its
agent. IESG/IAB has become a group of irresponsible volunteers who
Umm.. Mohsen? THe RFC Editor *IS* an agent of the IETF/IESG/IAB. That's
been understood for well over a decade.
1120 Internet Activities Board. V. Cerf. Sep-01-1989. (Format:
TXT=26123 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC1160) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
Read section 2...
That's the last I'm going to say on it - although I was prepared to file
this whole thread under "substantiative disagreement", it's tipped well into
"loon filter time"....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
pgpSYZm4uozFP.pgp
Description: PGP signature