Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

Keith,

> These days, for a protocol specification to be of "reasonable use" on a 
> wide scale it needs to avoid causing harm.  
First, something can be of reasonable use while still causing harm. 
Fossil based fuels prove that.  And while I agree that there are certain 
areas where causing harm to others needs to be considered (such as 
UDP-based protocols that lack well known congestion avoidance 
algorithms), we as a community cannot be so risk averse that we drive 
development elsewhere.
Consider the case where someone *DID* invent a UDP-based file transfer 
protocol (FSP).  The work was done completely outside the IETF and 
satisfied a demand.  When that demand subsided use of that protocol 
diminished.  And yet does not have a specification for this Historic 
protocol.
Similarly, SOCKS went quite far before the IETF ever got a look at it. 
Why?  Because we are no longer viewed as a place where development can 
seriously take place.  Risk averse.  You know that thing about running 
code?  Taken too far we fail what I think part of our mission is, which 
is to be a place to collaborate, because everyone will have shown up 
with their respective running code, only to fight over whose running 
code (if anybody's) will become the standard.  See, for instance, the 
XMPP/IMPP wars.
> There have been too many 
> exploits of security holes and privacy holes in poorly-designed 
> protocols.  While it might be useful to publish an informational 
> specification of a widely-deployed protocol on the theory that 
> publishing it will make the public more aware of its limitations and 
> help them migrate to better protocols, publishing a specification of a 
> hazardous protocol that is not widely deployed can encourage wider 
> deployment and increase the risk of harm.
> > Keith is trying to raise the bar.  I prefer to keep the bar low.  I, 
> > frankly, don't see a problem with there being more
> > crap published as RFCs, whether produced by WGs or produced by 
> > individuals.
>
> Publishing crap dilutes the value of the RFC series, and makes it more 
> difficult for the public to recognize the good work that IETF does.  It 
> also costs money which could be better put to other uses.
This was never the series' intent.  We've attempted to warp it into 
this, and the result has been The Official Dogma, with a corresponding 
lack of development within the IETF.  If we want to allow for REAL 
innovation WITHIN the IETF, then you have to let some crap through, and 
you have to trust the RFC Editor and others to hold the bar at some level.
Eliot