ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material

2000-10-01 11:40:02
  *> 
  *> one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
  *> anything as an RFC:  once it has that designation "RFC",
  *> THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
  *> plaster all over it.  (Even a biohazard symbol with a
  *> legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't help. Ooops -
  *> can't do the symbol in ASCII - sorry - bad idea.)
  *> 
  *> i know it isn't supposed to be this way, but 
  *> 
  *>    THIS IS REALITY - GET OVER IT.
  *> 
  *> the IETF has been in denial about this problem
  *> for many years. I personally submitted an alternative
  *> which was roundly defeated as it had the temerity to
  *> try and bring intent in line with current reality.
  *> 
  *> instead, people decided to continue insisting that
  *> reality was as they desired, not as it is.
  *> 
  *> until this get fixed, worrying about any one
  *> incident is worse than pointless - it continues
  *> the denial.
  *> 
  *> have a nice day.
  *> 
  *>    -mo
  *> 

Mike,

I frankly don't understand the causal relationship between the fact
that some people in the larger community don't get it, and publishing
your very valuable and influential I-D as an Informational RFC.  If you
submit your valuable draft as an Informational RFC, I expect it will
get published, as have many others.  And I believe that this would be
service to the community.

  *> PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
  *> that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
  *> modicum of control over something.  the notion that people
  *> other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
  *> is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and simple, no matter
  *> whether the author gets listed or not.  you didn't have permission,
  *> it's plagarism, if not theft.
  *> 
  *> 
Agreed.

Bob Braden