--On Wednesday, 26 July, 2006 13:58 -0700 Ted Hardie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 3:28 PM -0400 7/26/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>> The other is that, to some readers, it appears to impose
>> binding requirements on how the RFC Editor deals with input
>> from the IESG, either directly (as in "if we recommend that
>> this text be inserted, you must insert it or not publish") or
>> indirectly (as in "if you don't follow our recommendations,
>> we will see to it that your funding is cut off"). For those
>> of us who believe that it is important to the Internet that
>> the RFC Editor function as an independent, cooperating,
>> entity rather than as a subsidiary of the IETF, that level of
>> requirement is not acceptable (that consideration is the
>> source of this discussion about aspects of the RFP and what
>> should, or should not, be in it). While the IETF can attempt
>> to establish links to particular funding sources and apply
>> leverage that way (which some of us are trying to
>> discourage), it is also beyond the ability of the IETF to
>> give itself the authority to impose such requirements
>> directly, any more than approval of a document as an IETF
>> Standard can force someone to conform to it.
>
> I don't agree with this understanding, but I appreciate your
> taking the time to clarify it. The "imposition of binding
> requirements" you cite above is, from my way of looking at it,
> instead a description of how the two cooperating entities
> cooperate. Putting descriptions of that kind into the RFP
> (or, rather, references to them) is useful for a potential
> respondent so that know what timelines and level of external,
> unpaid effort to expect from the IETF. Other ways around this
> seem to have their own headaches. For example, requiring the
> publisher of the independent stream to establish that a
> document does not inappropriately usurp an unregistered
> standards-dependent IANA namespace or reserved protocol
> bits would otherwise take the time and talents of the
> publisher's review teams. That slows the stream or increases
> costs in a different way.
Then I think we are more or less on the same page. The
challenge now is to get the RFP to appropriately reflect that
shared understanding.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
