*>
*> 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