Keith,
You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD.
RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524.
1) RFC-2188 (ESRO)
As far as I know the RFC-2188 complaint had
nothing to do with you. Everything is fully
documented. We are talking about historic facts,
not opinions. IESG did not object to publication
of ESRO (RFC-2188). I declined IESG's invitation
to put ESRO on standards track. That was my
choice. The problem was that it took 7 months.
2) RFC-2524 (EMSD)
You lost. I managed to convince the RFC Editor
of the merits of publication.
I used the RFC-2188 complaint to strengthen the
RFC Editor's independence. There has never been
any formal complaints related to RFC-2524.
The only part of the IESG note that can be
considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is:
-- In the near future, the IESG may charter a working group to define an
Internet standards-track protocol for efficient transmission of
electronic mail messages, which will be highly compatible with
existing Internet mail protocols, and which wil be suitable for
operation over the global Internet, including both wireless and wired
-- links.
And that was in 1999. I am curious to know what
happened.
In the mean time of course there has been the
proprietary and patent full BlackBerry.
Our real enemy are proprietary patented
protocols.
It would be hard to argue that existence of the
WhiteBerry concept has done any harm.
http://www.freeprotocols.org/operationWhiteberry/index.html
Back to the topic at hand:
Keith> ... I don't see how it's relevant now.
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
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:08:10 -0500, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> said:
Harald> The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
Harald> the communication with the author; that was the procedure at that
time.
Harald> Nevertheless, the RFC Editor felt that the document was worthy of
Harald> publication, and published anyway.
>> As the written record clearly shows, this is
>> factually incorrect.
>> In the case of RFC-2188 the RFC Editor was no more
>> than an IESG puppet. Publication was held up for
>> more than 7 months, until finally Scott Bradner
>> (Transport Area Director at the IESG) made it
>> happen -- emphatically *not* the RFC Editor. Scott
>> can step in, if he wishes.
Keith> I will go on record to say that I was the IESG member who did the most
Keith> to discourage publication of your document as an RFC. Contrary to
Keith> your perception of things, the RFC Editor published it over my strong
Keith> objections, and also insisted on diluting the IESG note that was
Keith> originally written for that document. I don't recall the reasons for
Keith> the delay other than the high workload of IESG (we were reviewing
Keith> dozens of documents per week, the fact that IESG discussed things in
Keith> conference calls every two weeks, and there were several iterations of
Keith> back-and-forth with the RFC Editor regarding your document. It is my
Keith> recollection that your document was handled much more quickly than
Keith> working group documents -- because unlike WG documents which proceeded
Keith> normally though the IESG's queue (and for which the speed of
Keith> processing was sensitive to IESG's workload), the RFC Editor had a
Keith> policy of giving IESG a limited amount of time to comment on
Keith> independent submissions that had the perverse side-effect of giving
Keith> priority to those submissions.
Keith> It was and still is my opinion that RFC 2188 was not suitable for
Keith> publication as an RFC, as it is poorly designed and has numerous
Keith> technical flaws. To have published this document IMHO dilutes the
Keith> quality of the RFC series and may confer an undeserved appearance of
Keith> acceptance on ESRO. Perhaps more importantly, the discussion about
Keith> this document wasted a colossal amount of time that could have been
Keith> put to much better use reviewing working group output (on the part of
Keith> the IESG) and editing better quality documents (on the part of the RFC
Keith> Editor).
Keith> As Harald points out, this was eight years ago, and the process has
Keith> changed significantly since that time. Also, I'm no longer on the
Keith> IESG and don't expect to ever be on the IESG again. Life is too
Keith> short. Since all of the circumstances and nearly all of the people
Keith> have changed since this incident, I don't see how it's relevant now.
Keith> Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf