At 16.38 + 00-06-27, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
>I believe I also played a significant role in
>establishing the RFC Editor's independence based on my insistence on
>doing it by the book.
Not at all.
You did not change or play any specific role at all.
The standard mechanism was used.
Keith Moore wrote:
>
>
> These days the value in the RFC series is not that it is a central
> repository for everything having to do with Internet protocols
> (as if such a repository were even feasible!) but that documents
> in the series are likely to be relevant and of reasonable quality.
>
> From: Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> I think things are headed in that general direction and I think it is a
> sad state of affairs. Historically, RFCs were used to document ideas,
> both good and bad. The series covered the range of idea generation
> and expression and this was enco
> Not what I would have hoped for in an evolved Internet.
A lot has changed in the past 30 years.
The notion that 'anything is fair game' in the RFC series made a lot
more sense when the Internet was just an experimental network, and
when packet-switched newtorking was brand new. In such an en
% If I were to suggest any change in the RFC review and publication process,
% it would be to give IESG the power to say "no" to publication of individual
% submissions. (perhaps with the possibility of formal appeal to IAB)
% I do not believe that IESG would do this capriciously, and I believe
On 27 Jun 2000, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
> D.J. Bernstein concluded his case study with the following
> paragraph.
>
>
> It's well known that the IETF is no longer the primary source of
> progress in Internet engineering. The only respectable activity left
> for the IAB, IESG, and IETF
> In the case of RFC-2188, the RFC Editor did *nothing* and just waited
> for the IESG for more than 7 months. That is well documented.
A bit of explanation is in order.
The IESG takes its review responsibilities seriously, and cannot
always in good conscience approve the publication of a docume
> Date: 27 Jun 2000 16:38:48 -
> From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: The Non-IETF Informational RFC Publication Fiction
> [...]
> I believe I also played a significant role in
> establishing the RFC Editor's independence based on m
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:48:50 GMT, Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Mohsen>
Mohsen> The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
Mohsen> becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
Mohsen> claims full ownership of the RFC Publicat
In 1997, D.J. Bernstein wrote a short note titled:
RFC submission: a case study
The full text of that note is available at
http://cr.yp.to/proto/rfced.html
D.J. Bernstein concluded his case study with the following
paragraph.
It's well known that the IETF is no longer the prima
*>
*> The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
*> becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
*> claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes
*> whatever may want to compete with it or that it does not
*> like. I
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -, Mohsen BANAN-Public
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
> becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
> claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes
Of c
12 matches
Mail list logo
