On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:23:45 +0000, Dave Cridland
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> said:
Dave> On Sun Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
>> For example, the negative IESG note in the
>> original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
>> demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
>> relevance.
Dave> For the crowd watching who were curious, but not curious enough to
Dave> bother looking, RFC1945 (HTTP/1.0), which of course is NOT the
Dave> original HTTP spec at all, carries the note:
Dave> The IESG has concerns about this protocol, and expects this document
Dave> to be replaced relatively soon by a standards track document.
Dave> RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later,
Dave> which would appear to be "relatively soon".
The primary author of Informational RFC1945 with
the negative IESG note is Tim Berners-Lee.
He then pulled out of the IETF/IESG and formed
W3C.
Why do you think that happened?
And where is IETF/IESG with W3C now?
In my opinion what started with the Informational
RFC1945 is the most significant advancement since
formation of IETF/IESG/IAB/...
Almost always innovation comes from outside of
committees.
Dave> But back to your argument, which appears to be that if the RFC editor
Dave> function were utterly independent from the IAB/IETF/IESG, your
Dave> protocols would have been published without those notes, and without
Dave> the review those notes required. Which part is the problem, the
Dave> review, or the note attached to the document?
None of those.
My concern is not my own RFCs. I got them
published despite of the IETF/IESG opposition. The
IESG note is a badge of honor similar to Tim
Berners-Lee's.
The perspective that the world needs the IESG note
to be able to judge the merits of a protocol is at
best comical. The scope and purpose of the IESG
note should be limited to relevance and overlap
with current or planned IETF work. An independent
RFC Editor should enforce this and put the IESG in
its place. That is what the then BCP -- RFC-2026
-- said. Of course, things work differently in a
cult.
I suspect that lots of direct independent RFC
submissions are being censored by the IESG. The
community is being fragmented. And the trend
appears to be for the situation to only be getting
worse.
Again, all of this is in the context of:
STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter
where the key topics are:
- Independence of RFC Publication Service
- Relationship of IETF/IESG/IAB with the RFC Publication Service
- Use of the RFC Publication Service by the Internet Community
Tony gets it:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:28:17 -0800, "Tony Hain"
<alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net> said:
Tony> The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who
Tony> would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios,
MUST
Tony> NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. The RFC
editor
Tony> role needs to be extricated from the overbearing IESG and returned to
its
Tony> independent role. Doing otherwise further fragments the community which
will
Tony> only lead to its downfall.
From my perspective, based on past performance,
the IETF/IESG/IAB can not be trusted to control
the RFC Publication Service.
...Mohsen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf