Hi Dave,
I agree with your second observation. It may well be that the current RFC
editor model has not *yet* caused a pragmatic problem.
I stand to my first assessment, as originally formulated.
The main issue is: should the IETF be pro-active on these matters, or not.
For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in staying
with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using the RFC
series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF over the RFC
series). If there were indeed no value beyond traditions, why run any risk,
no matter how small? Certainly there must be some risk in giving the RFC
editor, rather than the duly appointed IETF officials, the last say in
publishing documents that are perceived as IETF documents.
I could follow an argument that changing the publication mechanism is large
enough a pain to best avoid it, for the small pragmatic gains we may get.
Regards,
Stephan
On 9/9/09 9:19 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Stephan Wenger wrote:
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,
Stephen,
First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the
perception.
Second, you lack empirical data that it is causing a pragmatic problem.
That is what ought to be the lesson of having repeated this thread every few
years for 20 years ought to be.
Make a change when you have a demonstrable, real and damaging problem, not
just
something you don't like.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf