Without knowing the specifics of Jon's overrides - I can only say
that those I know of involved poorly written or unclear documents
that Jon was exercising reasonable editorial control over. If you're
saying that we don't want an editor for the series - e.g. just
publish what the IESG
Michael StJohns wrote:
Brian -
In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document
that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.
These are the facts as I understand them.
1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel
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
: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
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
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
Hi Mike,
Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor
Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs
The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding
from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the
banner of the RFC Series.
I'll grant that you have a much
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you
could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would
require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the
fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what
the law is you have to read the
What a difference a single word can make. I do agree you
could read this in the manner in which you read it, but that would
require completely ignoring the history of the RFC Editor project and the
fact it has always been at ISI. E.g. sometimes to understand what
the law is you have to read the
Brian -
In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document
that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.
These are the facts as I understand them.
1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel
the RFC Editor, but more recently
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't.
Eliot
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
The IAB document is consistent with the
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
What
At 02:31 PM 6/9/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that
At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
The IAB document is consistent
with the operational facts
that have governed
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
That's a mischaracterization of what I said,
At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
*
* I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between
* IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC Editor
* agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not
* be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
In the doc
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor.
This is incorrect.
Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was
in
Indeed -- the potential for leaving the RFC Editor
split or hanging in space is one of the driving reasons behind
elaborating the existing IAB charter text and creating
this document.
The key elements are:
. the RFC Editor has been under the auspices of
the IAB for some time
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals mechanism
available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism for IAB decisions.
Should there be?
Depends for what. Standards related actions? Sure. Contracts and
liaison decisions? No, other
Hi Eliot,
I disagree. Just as I expect you to use your judgment on the
IESG I expect the IAB to use their judgment. Community
oversight comes in the form of the NOMCOM. If you believe
that oversight is not effective, then let's discuss that instead.
If an AD or the IESG makes a
On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If an AD or the IESG makes a mistake, there is also an appeals
mechanism available. There isn't any documented appeals mechanism
for IAB decisions. Should there be?
Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026. As with an appeal
On 5/31/06, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
There isn't any documented appeals mechanism
for IAB decisions. Should there be?
Actually, there is. See section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026.
Fred,
Do you read that as being able to say the IAB
On May 31, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Bill Fenner wrote:
Do you read that as being able to say the IAB made a mistake in
their (RFC Editor selection|liaison management|other IAB-assigned
task)? I read it as being able to say the IAB upheld my appeal
to the IESG because RFC 2026 supports them, but
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding
issue
here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the
potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet
Sam,
However there needs to be a way for a member of this
community--whatever it is--to make a proposal, to get enough support,
and to have that proposal be adopted.
I.E. it is fine if the IAB of whomever can do a lot of things on their
own. However the community needs the ability to
disagreement
with the IAB, are you?
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:36 AM
-- To: Sam Hartman
-- Cc: Pete Resnick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
--
-- Sam
Look at draft-ietf-newtrk-docid-00.txt
This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO.
Brian
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding
issue
here is the actual level
As always, Eric, my concern is that we can overprocess things. In New
Jersey, where I come from, this usually involves hair. In standards
bodies it involves rules. Even the doc I put out about obsoleting well
known ports concerns me a little about adding process.
Eliot
I'm in complete agreement with Eliot (but that may be off point for the
general topic). In recent years the IETF has been struck by a
particularly virulent form of back seat driver syndrome which has not
only caused the community to believe they should second guess all
possible decisions, but
this summary is right on
E.g. the IAB should keep its hands off the independent submission
process at least with this channel
so is the rest of Mike's message
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO.
I must strongly disagree here Brian - irrespective of any details of
implementation, the level of independence and discretion granted to the RFC
Editor to edit and publish documents that are not the outcome of the IETF's
peer review process is, I
the level of independence and discretion granted to the RFC
Editor to edit and publish documents that are not the outcome of the
IETF's peer review process is, I believe, a central matter in any
version of an RFC Editor Charter.
how could be any other way?
Scott
--On Wednesday, 31 May, 2006 05:02 +1000 Geoff Huston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO.
I must strongly disagree here Brian - irrespective of any
details of implementation, the level of independence and
discretion granted to the RFC Editor to edit and
On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the
IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated NONSENSE. Who is
this we to whom you are referring that is paying for
Pete == Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pete On 5/25/06 at 4:30 PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to
the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
Pete Sam, I'm sorry, but this is completely unadulterated
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue
here is the actual level of 'independence of the RFC Editor, and the
potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet
Standards Process
The problem
I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major concern.
Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the
IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.
In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP
placing requirements on an
Sam,
Some high-level responses, and I'm sure we'll hear other
input:
1/ I think you're overlooking something in IETF pays for RFC
Editor; RFC Editor has been paid by ISOC for years, and *that*
largely comes out of contributions from corporations. We actually
have no data beyond the fact that
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leslie Sam,
Leslie Some high-level responses, and I'm sure we'll hear other
Leslie input:
Leslie 1/ I think you're overlooking something in IETF pays for
Leslie RFC Editor; RFC Editor has been paid by ISOC for years,
Howdy,
I think though that the community ultimately needs to have the power
to take back anything it has given. Basically, I think it is critical
that ultimately everything within the greater IETF context be
accountable to the IETF community. That is true of the IESG, the IAB
and
44 matches
Mail list logo
