My perception is that often in the IETF, protocol and process design
works best that codifies and regularizes what is already being deployed.
I disagree with this characterization.
If a protocol that is already being deployed is well-designed, IETF
generally does a good job of documenting it
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 09:04 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The general circumstances under which IETF has trouble designing new
protocols are either or both of these: 1. When there are substantial
conflicts between major industry players about strategic direction in
that area. 2. When the
Hi Mike,
For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence for.
The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for]
the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information
Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA.
See my point?
Not
May I suggest a different set of questions, on the independent list?
Instead of arguing about what the RFC Editor is, or who created,
defines, or controls it, lets try to figure out whether we need to
change the current situation, and if so what changes we need to make.
1) Does John Klensin's
Hi Joel,
I don't think that the document that Mike and I have been discussing is the
same one that you're talking about...
The one we've been discussing is draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.txt, which is an
RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB, with Leslie Daigle acting as editor.
The document that
I would agree that folks should read all three documents.
However, as far as I can tell, Mike's concerns with
draft-iab-rfc-editor all revolve around the status and support of
independent contributions.
It would seem much more effective to resolve that view, and then
discuss the exact wording
