Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

At 22:29 17/03/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Ran,
>
> RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >   There was an understanding then that the
> > RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
> > documents.  I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
> > I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
> > that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored
> > documents.
> It may have been true in 1993.
>
> At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond 
> the IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC 
> Editor's output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the 
> motivation for people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; 
> *all* of the funding for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC.
> At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better 
> or worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process 
> for other purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should).
> But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is 
> independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.
> Harald
RFC 3935 claims leadership for the IETF in influencing "the way 
people design, use and manage the Internet". This is achieved through 
RFCs and through the IANA, in English. If the NTIA sells the IANA and 
the RFC Editor is independent from the IETF, this will put the IETF 
in competition for QA and ethic documents. Would it be bad?. 
Leadership would then swicth to RFC Editor and IANA and to those able 
to influence them outside of the IETF. You may recall that IANA has 
the full right today (MoU with IETF and ICANN) to publish other 
registries that  IETF registries. But who would be globally 
authoritative? No one, and this would be confusion.
This is the core of our contention over RFC 3066 Bis. You tried to 
impose the RFC Editor the positions of an external consortium to the 
IETF.  You try to retain, for you and Members of that consortium, the 
IESG duties concerning its related IANA registries. I oppose you on 
the grounds of your doctrine. But I think that your approach is 
pragmatic and consistent with the today nature of the IANA, of the 
RFC Editor, and of the IETF. And I played on it to in fact win 
against you, partly at the IETF, mostly outside of it, where I wanted it.
What is proposed today is actually to accept the consequences of this 
(and hopefully organising it), or to restaure the situation. The 
questions IMHO are:
- should the IETF _try_ to influence, or should it _want_ to serve, 
those who  design, use and manage the Internet?
- should the IETF (which by essence is a protocol 
engineering/maintenance structure) focus on RFCs or keep consistently 
documented and updated Internet technology FAQs.This would make it a 
third equal level entity together with IANA and RFC Editor. A Trinity 
which may be efficient, but where the IETF still has the capacity to 
issue RFCs (as IAB, IESG, NSF, IGF, etc.) but where it would maintain 
the "last word" through its "HOW TO". What is the influence anyone 
can have with 4200 documents?
jfc






> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf