I believe that INTERNET-DRAFTS are not controlled by the RFC EDITOR.
This is a failure of the IETF Secetariat, of IESG oversight.
I have already commented on the lameness of the "This document is an
}Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026" text that ahs recently been added to the
required text to be inserted into all INTERNT-DRAFTS.
My comment was that such a "content free" citation is not at all
helpful, and should be expanded to include singnificatn information
about what is relevant about RFC2026. In fact, the added text I
endorsed was written by Scott Bradner who agreed with me that his text
worl be a very good and useful addition to all INTERNET-DRAFTS.
Unfortunatley my private request only received a rather rude reply
from the IETF Secretriat so I backed off to await this kind of
evidence that the change clearly needs to be made!
So, lets just get to it an fix it without making it into an ICANN
case.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:30:23 -0500:
}
}Would any of the "real" engineers reading here say that the item below
}offers a good reason why the less that the IETF has to do with ICANN the
}better?
}
}Does the RFC editor position now need political protection?
}
}Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:27:57 -0700 (MST)
}From: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: PPTP draft
}
}> From: Karl Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}
}> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
}> > directories. This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point
}> > Protocol Extensions Working Grou p of the IETF
}
}> You are correct; PPTP is not a work item of the PPPEXT working group.
}
}Thanks.
}
}That's the second time in the last couple of weeks I've encountered a
}draft that appeared to be an officially sponsored and approved IETF
}document, but was not. I had no clue about the real status of the other
}example, until the author enlightened me. It contained no clue about its
}intended eventual status, the working group with which it ies associated,
}or anything useful than ISOC copyright.
}
}It would be really swell if all announcements would accurately state the
}status of the document. It would also be good the RFC editor would refuse
}to announce documents until there their text makes clear their source and
}status. The PPTP draft does include the familar "does not specify an
}Internet standard" disclaimer, but only after saying "This document is an
}Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section
}10 of RFC2026." Wannabe that most readers will read the first three
}paragraphs, not read RFC 2026, miss the "not a standard" disclaimer, and
}conclude that PPTP is an official IETF standard? Shouldn't the disclaimer
}be first, since it is most important and relevant?
}
}As long as the IETF is being a free vanity publisher for the world, it
}wouldn't hurt if the Editor imposed a few minimal guidelines to slow
}the dilution of the IETF brand or trademark.
}
}
}Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}***************************************************************************
}The COOK Report on Internet 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
}(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cookreport.com
}
}NOTE: Contempt in which ICANN PRES. MIKE ROBERTS holds rest of Internet:
}"Some of those people think the management [ICANN] should check with the
}public [the Communities of the Internet] every time they make a decision,
}which is crazy," Roberts said. "That's flat-out crazy." WIRED NEWS 2/4/99
}***************************************************************************
