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,
The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who
would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST
NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. The RFC editor
role needs to be extricated from the overbearing IESG and returned to its
independent role. Doing otherwise further fragments the community which will
only lead to its downfall.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf