On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier
and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web
pages. Fred might note that "cheaper" with his IAOC hat on ;-).
I do indeed. That said, I'm paying for the RFC Editor's office
anyway, so not asking them to work on a specific document doesn't
necessarily save me money - what would save money is not having them
work on a large subset of documents. From my perspective, what is
costly in RFC development is the amount of time it takes and the
hoops one jumps through to do and to respond to review. It doesn't
cost money per se, but it costs time, and in my wallet time is more
valuable.
<heresy>
If you really want to argue that IONs are of value in the sense of
not having the RFC editor edit and publish them, the question we want
to ask is what the quality of an ION's English grammar (perhaps the
RFC Editor's biggest value-add) and how does it compare to that of an
RFC? If an RFC is not noticeably better, do we need the RFC Editor's
office AT ALL?
</heresy>
Personally, that is a consideration I want to make very carefully;
the amount of work the RFC Editor puts into an RFC varies quite a bit
(something about the grammar skills of its author), and some
documents really benefit from the process. If we were to decide we
didn't need the RFC Editor any more, I would expect the IAOC to
make consultative editorial services available to working groups so
that documents headed to the IESG had already been through that process.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf