From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
...
on the other hand, (and IMHO) making the I-D series permanently archived
will discourage folks from tossing out half-baked ideas and trying to
get others to improve on them; and it will encourage folks who are just
looking for a soapbox and can't get any community support for their ideas.
Is that concern consistent with the first 250 or 500 RFC's? Weren't
the first RFC's more like current Internet-Drafts?
Also, it's hard for me to to believe that any of those arguing for any
position on this subject are so shy that they would be deterred by the
possibility that their words in an I-D will be slightly more easily found
than their far less carefully chosen words in mailing lists.
On the other hand, shielding I-D's from public criticism is part and parcel
of the steady evolution of the IETF into a professional standards body
(i.e. a body whose members' job descriptions count "member of the IETF" as
a major component, and I don't mean area directors or members of the IAB.)
So, a modest proposal:
- Eliminate Internet-Drafts.
- Give RFC numbers to all submissions to the IESG. Any submissions
that don't make the standards track are marked Informational.
As someone else observed, this would have the additional benefit of so
devaluing the cachet of "RFC" that much of that problem would be solved.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com