Hi,
As it has been pointed out here often, the RFC series is more than just the
document numbering scheme for IETF standards. However, if you attend a
marketing gathering, a random CS conference, a non-IETF standardization
meeting, or even the IETF plenary, a majority of people (probably a large
majority) would answer the question "what are RFCs" with "standards set by
the IETF", or something thereabouts.
This *perception* is important. And changing it means changing the
*perception* of a large number of people, for very little value except
honoring a 40 year old institution. That's not a value proposition I can
easily support.
If the IETF is *perceived* as the owner and/or sole contributor to the IETF
series, it should have influence up to veto power regarding the content of
that series, through its chosen management structure---that is, AFAIK and in
this case, the IESG. Otherwise, it cannot stop the publication of documents
against its interest.
It's pretty clear now that the IESG is not going to get the tools I consider
required to influence the RFC editor, due to historical facts and the
independence of the RFC editor and its support functions.
Is it time that the IETF considers publishing its material elsewhere?
Regards,
Stephan
On 9/9/09 8:32 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Robert Elz wrote:
| The better question is, if IEEE was distributing the output of the IETF
in
| its series of standards publications
You're operating under the mistaken impression that the RFC series is
IETF standards - it isn't - some of he RFCs are IETF standards, others
are other IETF publications, and others have nothing to do with the IETF
at all. It is just a document series that the IETF happens to use as
a place to publish its output.
This is the core point. Some folk want to re-cast the RFC series as structly
subservient to the IETF. But that's not how it has operated for 40 years.
Yes,
folks, 4 decades.
There is a fundamental difference between "having a strong relationship"
versus
"being subservient".
In order to make such a basic change, there needs to be a compelling statement
of need for which there is strong community consensus. None has yet been
offered, except the same one that gets repeated every few years, for at least
20
years, namely that some folk don't understand the RFC series. Sigh. Yes,
folks, this thread is the same as has been repeated many, many times,
including
the consistent lack of demonstrated damage from the current arrangement.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf