ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Does being an RFC mean anything?

2009-03-11 20:18:45
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:54 PM, TSG <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:

Lawrence Rosen wrote:

Because Larry - many of those here owe their ongoing $$$ livelihood to the
lie the IETF has become. And so what you are suggesting is increasing the
rolls of the unemployed by adding these individuals who's whole existence is
the IETF. Its also these people in my opinion that make the IETF the
laughingstock its become as you so rights notice that RFC's and the process
for creating standards has degraded into a model where there really is no
standard.


I agree.  I also remember over the years that many voices warned this was
coming.  I heard them.  Did anyone else?

cheers
joe baptista





Just my two cents

Todd Glassey


The recent threads about draft-housley-tls-authz have taught me something
I didn't know about IETF, and I don't like what I've learned.

There are, it appears, many types of IETF RFCs, some which are intended to
be called "Internet standards" and others which bear other embedded labels
and descriptions in their boilerplate text that are merely "experimental" or
"informational" or perhaps simply "proposed standard". One contributor here
described the RFC series as "a repository of technical information [that]
will be around when I am no longer around."

The world is now full of standards organizations that treat their works as
more significant than merely "technical information." Why do we need IETF
for that purpose? If all we need is a repository of technical information,
let's just ask Google and Yahoo to build it for us. Maybe our Internet
standards should instead be created in an organized body that pays serious
attention to the ability of the wide world to implement those standards
without patent encumbrances.

But even if IETF isn't willing to amend its patent policy that far—and
most SDOs still aren't, unfortunately—at the very least we should take our
work seriously. When someone proposes a serious RFC, we should demand that
the water around that RFC be swept for mines—especially **disclosed** patent
mines that any serious sailor would want to understand first.

If IETF isn't willing to be that serious, maybe we should recommend that
our work go to standards organizations that do care? As far as my time to
volunteer for a better Internet, there are far better ways to do it than
listening here to proposals that are merely "technical information." At the
very least, separate that into a different list than IETF.org so I know what
to ignore!

By the way, many of the same companies and individuals who are involved
here in IETF are also active participants in W3C, OASIS, and the new Open
Web Foundation, all of which organizations pay more attention to patents and
the concept of "open standards" than what IETF seems to be doing here. So
let's not be disingenuous, please. Almost everyone here has previous
experience doing this the right way.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com <
http://www.rosenlaw.com>)

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243

Skype: LawrenceRosen

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



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



-- 
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>