Hi John -
I'm convinced we (the internet community) still need an true independent
submissions path. I'm no longer convinced that the path should or can lead
through the RFC editor.
In the far past, the RFC Editor was a true independent entity - part of the
internet community, participating and part of the IAB, but with its own funding
source and a mandate to do the right thing. The RFC Editor was a both a
technical and stylistic reviewer and final arbiter of what got published - but
that wasn't a very heavy burden for the community.
Over the years that independence has waned - with the cessation of independent
funding, with Jon Postel's death, with the termination of the IETF's CNRI
relationship, and most recently with the competition of the RFC Editor
function. Control has been centralized and the RFC Editor's editorial
independence has all but been eliminated.
At this point, it appears to be about who gets to decide. And that goes back
to the golden rule. It's too easy for those who control the funding to control
the publication, especially since the RFC editor function has mostly been
reduced to stylistics without the ability (either contractually or technically)
to act as a fair and independent decider. I may be overstating the case, but I
can't see how it could be any different given what I've read in the
solicitations.
I can't see any way to provide an objective set of publication rules that can
be implemented by rote by the editor. Which right now throws the subjective
decisions over to the IESG which can have a conflict of interest with respect
to certain submissions - hence the whole set of discussions about "notes".
I fear the problem is intractable without reference to an editorial/publication
decision function that is completely independent of the IESG.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf