]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
> > > What you say might have been true up until say the mid 1980s, but
> > > today, it's hard to defend that statement. For many
Keith Moore wrote:
> Joe,
>
> What you say might have been true up until say the mid 1980s, but
> today, it's hard to defend that statement. For many years the vast
> majority of RFCs have been produced by IETF either from working groups
> or individual submissions.
That vast number does not e
> > What you say might have been true up until say the mid 1980s, but
> > today, it's hard to defend that statement. For many years the vast
> > majority of RFCs have been produced by IETF either from working groups
> > or individual submissions.
>
> That vast number does not establish the credib
Joe,
What you say might have been true up until say the mid 1980s, but
today, it's hard to defend that statement. For many years the vast
majority of RFCs have been produced by IETF either from working groups
or individual submissions. Several other RFCs that have been
published - e.g. documents
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
>>
>> Since I have found myself in the uncomfortable position of being
>> temporary spokesperson for those whose views are somewhat more
>> conservative than mine, let me suggest, as a clarification what
>> this would look like if done from a more traditional view
>>
--On Thursday, 27 July, 2006 11:04 -0700 Todd Glassey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JCK
> Lets ask Jorge if the Final RFP is different from interim
> RFP's then dont all parties have to be given proper review and
> response time to the final version? lest they recieve less
> access or are not fav
ROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org, Allison Mankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL
>PROTECTED], Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
>
>--On Thursday, 27 July, 2006 14:40 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--On Thursday, 27 July, 2006 14:40 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>> My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
>>> Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
>>> series will be under the contract holder's management in
>>> some way, allowi
Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Joe,
>> [...]
>>
>> *independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled.
>>
>
> I would first see independent submissions abolished altogether. There
> are many publishing outlets. This is not the 1970s. The term RFC has
> been appropriated by the IETF
Joe,
> [...]
>
> *independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled.
>
I would first see independent submissions abolished altogether. There
are many publishing outlets. This is not the 1970s. The term RFC has
been appropriated by the IETF community.
Eliot
Leslie Daigle wrote:
>
> Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the
> IETF family/universe/collection.
>
> The important thing is that the IAB is independent in
> its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's
> whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to
> b
...
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
series will be under the contract holder's management in some
way, allowing input from the editor. I want to urge this
just because the RFC series is shared by four streams.
Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the
IETF family/universe/collection.
The important thing is that the IAB is independent in
its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's
whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to
be the key elements in your concerns of
Leslie Daigle wrote:
...
> [*] This is perhaps a reasonable time to reiterate that
> the IAB is, in fact, a separate entity from the IETF organization.
There are many who believe that all RFCs are Internet standards
documents, thus the current concern with adding IESG non-review
statements to in
--On Wednesday, 26 July, 2006 12:38 -0700 Allison Mankin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC
> Editor that the delineation of the independent submission
> series will be under the contract holder's management in some
> way, allowing input from
Where will it say that IETF BCPs apply as relevant?
That is in the markup I have sent to Ray, so I hope
it will be in the next version...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
TED]>; "John C Klensin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
> >
> > As was said, that is still an open discussion, so I don't think we
> > can specify it today.
>
> I no
> > NEW:
> > As required by RFC 2026, submit document to IESG for review of
> > conflicts or confusion with IETF process, end runs around working
> > group activities, and obvious and significant harm to the Internet
> On balance I don't think the 2026 reference is needed - we wil
At 8:56 AM -0400 7/26/06, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>[*] This is perhaps a reasonable time to reiterate that
>the IAB is, in fact, a separate entity from the IETF organization.
>
With respect, I believe that the formulation "separate entity"
is a bit too simple for the relationship of the IAB and the I
Actually:
. since the existence of the IASA (last year),
the ISOC BoT has been asked to support the RFC Editor
as part of what IASA supports -- IETF *and* IAB (and IRTF).
. as part of the initial proposal of 2007 budget for IASA,
to the ISOC BoT, on
I'm going to comment on Allison's original posting, since the target
is specific text changes to the RFP. (I have read the follow-ups).
Allison Mankin wrote:
Hi, Ray, and all,
I read the SOW earlier to check that it matched with the
draft-mankin-pub-req-10 (output of techspec), but I've now
giv
Ted is correct. The "harm to the Internet" text is wrong -
it isn't mentioned on 2026 and it is excluded from consideration
by 3932 - but we shouldn't mix fixing that bug in the RFP
with fixing the procedural issues.
Brian
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 7:25 PM -0400 7/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
22 matches
Mail list logo
