Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Again, I wish to emphasise that this is completely distinct from the
question of whether anyone ought to do anything about the state of
affairs. I refuse to take a position on that, or even consider it as
a topic for a conversation in which I'll be involved. There are
enough windmills around without us throwing up new ones at which we
can tilt.
That's a shame. The standards world is looking for someone who can tilt at
the windmills that are the entrenched habits of our day. Who wants to be the
hero of that novel?
I'm being serious. I agree with you that there is much unhelpful confusion
about "RFCs".
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Cell: 707-478-8932
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:20 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature
of IESG notes
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
for example, the second and third. Based on that latter set, I could
claim that "THE" perception is that the RFC series is
I am at the best of times uneasy with universal quantifiers, and
certainly when talking about THE belief of THE Internet, I feel pretty
uneasy. Also, I haven't followed this discussion much, partly because
I fully agree with the observation that most of it has been hashed so
much, and warmed over so many times, that it's now turned into a form
of American breakfast potato.
But it doesn't seem to me to be doing favours to anyone to deny the
obvious point that there's at least a substantial community of people
who regard the label "RFC" as bespeaking "an IETF document" and also
"Internet standard". Claiming that it's not true by pointing to
examples of careful and clueful definitions (one of which is
practically a sockpuppet for the IETF pages themselves) does not
clarify this matter. Even organizations involved in the
administration of the Internet apparently rely on something "being an
RFC" as somehow implying an _imprimatur_ or at least _nihil obstat_
(if anyone wants evidence of that matter, I think the archives of
agreements found at ICANN will be instructive).
Again, I wish to emphasise that this is completely distinct from the
question of whether anyone ought to do anything about the state of
affairs. I refuse to take a position on that, or even consider it as
a topic for a conversation in which I'll be involved. There are
enough windmills around without us throwing up new ones at which we
can tilt.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
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