ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

2006-06-09 11:10:24
Brian -

In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.

These are the facts as I understand them.

1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel the "RFC Editor", but more recently under Bob Braden's direction.

2) The RFC Series was first begun in 1969 and was for the most part a commentary on the ARPANet experiment until the late 1970's.

3) The RFC editor function was paid for in its entirety by the US Government from 1969 until sometime in 1997-98.

4) The IETF didn't begin until 1986.

5) The first lists of "IAB" standards didn't appear until 1988 (RFC1083) and that document made it clear that standards were only a part of what the RFC Editor did. Note that at that time the author of 1083 was listed as "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board " It wasn't for another few years (approx 1991 I believe) that the split of standards into Draft/Proposed/Standard began to be reflected in the successor documents to 1083

6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the IAB going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how far) so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was correct, but to more properly state it "The IAB [in the person of the RFC editor] is responsible for editorial management..." brackets mine. Jon was a polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in his life - I'm not surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't see its as a distinction with a difference.

7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process. It is not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor.

8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art "RFC Editor" or "RFC Series" to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC. E.g. the mere fact the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not necessarily give them ownership of that term or the series itself.


Conclusions:

1) The RFC Editor is not just the Internet Standards process.
2) The RFC Series, while it is currently the archival series for the Internet Standards, is broader than just that process.
3) The Internet Standards series could be published by another channel.
4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series probably vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and some other entity.


These facts and conclusions lead me to the conclusion that the RFC Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the publisher of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC Editor. The IETF/IABs interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to those specific roles we ask him to take on for us and must not bleed over into to trying to control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization.


With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor answerable to the community - I wouldn't. I'd make the publisher of Internet Standards answerable for the publication of Internet standards and not interfere in the other work they're doing. E.g. if you don't like what the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move the standards series someplace else. If you do move it someplace else, don't expect to constrain what else they do.

If you want that series to be the RFC series - ask ISI nicely for the transfer of rights to the IAOC. Once that happens I'll shut up about the need to keep in mind that the RFC Editor and the publisher of Internet Standards are two distinct roles.


To be blunt - this is a grab for power. Certain persons don't like the independence of the RFC Editor and want total control over the editorial process. I'm at times minded of state control over newspapers in some of our less progressive countries. I'm pretty disgusted we've fallen to this point.



At 03:37 AM 6/7/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
In the doc "
   It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
   organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
   the RFC Editor."

This is incorrect.

Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was
in 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration,
because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising:
I was the editor of RFC 2850.]

It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994):

      The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of
      the Request for Comments (RFC) document series...

which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992):

     [IAB] responsibilities shall include:

       ...

      (2)  The editorial management and publication of the Request for
           Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
           archival publication series for Internet Standards and
           related contributions by the Internet research and
           engineering community.

I am very puzzled by how you believe that the RFC Editor can be made
answerable to the community otherwise. I would object most strongly
to any notion that the RFC Editor's authority should be self-perpetuating.
I would also object to erecting a new bureaucracy for community oversight,
given that the IAB exists and is put in place by (and can be ejected by)
a community process.

   Brian



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