> You seem quite afraid of the IETF being hijacked by vendors' marketing > people, but I submit you are denying a documented role of the IETF to be > a clearing house for information in the process. I have no problem with IETF having that role, and I agree that it is useful. My objection was not about IETF having this role, but about publication of this specific document, in its current form. 2026 never says that all industry contributions are automatically worthy of publciation. Neither does it say that the purpose of RFCs is to serve as a way for vendors to claim legitimacy for techincally dubious ideas - as happens all too often. This one, I think, is not worthy. Or at least, it's on the margin. Keith
- Re: recommendation against public... Derrell D. Piper
- Re: recommendation against public... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against public... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against public... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-ce... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation against publication of dra... Keith Moore
- prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Martin J.G. Williams
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
