Subject: RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:49:08 -0400

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 legislative history.

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?  Inserting a single word can change the meaning.  You 
can't take a sentence that may or may not have been written with this 
attention to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning 
you say it has.

A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people 
to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was 
simply that.  The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the 
original charter of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed 
when ISOC started funding the group - that at least is clear because 
we're having this discussion.

"Today, the "Network Working Group" should be interpreted as the set 
of users, vendors, and researchers who are working to improve and 
extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella."

I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those 
under the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not exclusive of 
everyone else as you seem to imply.  I'm pretty sure they (the RFC 
Editor Staff) do to.

All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and 
this specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series 
and how to make sure its requirements are taken into account when a 
contract is let for publishing such standards. If that contract is 
let to ISI I would expect it to continue under the RFC imprint.  If 
that contract is let to another organization, I wouldn't expect it to 
continue under the RFC imprint and I'm OK with that.

Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI 
politely to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term  to ISOC for 
license to whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher.

Bolded the above because they keep getting missed.

Mike

At 02:43 PM 6/10/2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>
>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 longer history in the IETF than I do, but
>your characerization of the RFC Editor situation doesn't seem to match the
>various public sources I've been able to find regarding the current status
>of this work.
>
>For instance, the RFC Editor web site says:
>
>" 1. The RFC Editor was once Jon Postel; who is it today?
>
>         The RFC Editor is no longer a single person, it is a
>         small group of people. The Internet Society, on behalf
>         of the IETF, has contracted the RFC Editor function to
>         the Networking Division of the USC Information Sciences
>         Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA. ISI played a key
>         role in the development of the Internet, and Jon Postel
>         was the Director of ISI'S Networking Division for many
>         years. For an historical account of the RFC series, see
>         "30 Years of RFCs"."
>
>If ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) has contracted the RFC Editor function to
>ISI, then ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) could contract it to someone else.  I
>am not saying that we should.  IMO, ISI has been doing an excellent job of
>fulfilling the RFC Editor role, especially over the last year or so, when
>they have virtually eliminated the backlogs that had plagued us in the past.
>
>The RFC Editor web site also says:
>
>"2. Every RFC is attributed to the "Network Working Group". What
>    working group is that?
>
>         This label in the heading of every RFC is historical in
>         form and symbolic in content. Historically, "network working
>         group" meant the set of researchers who developed the packet
>         switching protocols for the ARPAnet, beginning in 1969. This
>         label is maintained on RFCs as a reminder of the long and
>         significant technical history that is recorded in the RFC series,
>         and as a reminder that today's technical decisions, wise or not,
>         may be with us for many years. Today, the "Network Working Group"
>         should be interpreted as the set of users, vendors, and researchers
>         who are working to improve and extend the Internet, in particular
>         under the ISOC/IETF umbrella."
>
>So, it appears that all RFCs are currently published under the ISOC/IETF
>umbrella.
>
>I am not arguing with the history you have presented, but I think that
>things may have changed since the days when DARPA funded the RFC series.  At
>this point, even the RFC Editor acknowledges that they are publishing all
>RFCs under the ISOC/IETF umbrella, and that ISI is contracted by ISOC to do
>so.
>
>Margaret
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:10:06 -0400

Hi Mike,

> the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information 
> Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA."
>
> See my point?  

Not really... 

> Inserting a single word can change the meaning.  You can't take a 
> sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention 
> to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it 
> has.  

Your edited version still has essentially the same meaning as the paragraph
had before.   There is a big difference between contracting (for) a function
and providing funding for it.  You seem to think that ISOC provides
philanthropic, no-strings-attached funding for "the RFC Editor", which you
have characterized as "an organization".  The RFC Editor's own website
refers to the RFC Editor as a "function" that ISOC contracts to ISI.  That
is a big difference, and inserting the word "for" doesn't change that.

> to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply 
> that.  The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter 
> of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started 
> funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this 
> discussion.

I think it is great that ARPA provided philanthropic funding for Jon Postel,
Joyce Reynolds and others to do the excellent work that they did.  I don't
know what contracts existed between ISI and ARPA for that work, but I also
don't know that they are material to this discussion.  Currently, there is a
contract between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI for RFC Editor
function, and that is what we're discussing now.

FWIW, I agree that the contract between ISOC and ISI, which is based on an
SOW produced by the IAB, includes the publication of documents that do not
go through the IETF Internet Standards process.  In fact, the IAB and the
IRTF are two of the groups that currently publish RFCs outside of the IETF
Internet Standards process, along other groups and individuals.  ISOC is
currently contracting ISI to provide the full RFC Editor function defined in
that SOW, not just the Internet Standards portion.

>> of users, vendors, and researchers who are working >> to improve and 
> I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under 
> the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not > exclusive of everyone 
> else as you seem to imply.  I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) 
> do to.

I'm not sure how you could read it that way, because that isn't what "in
particular" means...  If the RFC Editor wanted to say what you're saying,
they could have used the term "including".  The RFC Editor is a professional
technical editing organization, so I doubt they are as loose with their
wording as your interpretation implies.

We're probably carrying this analysis too far, though.  The document I was
quoting was a FAQ on the RFC Editor web site.  The only documents that
really define the relationship between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI
are the SOW (produced by the IAB) and the ISOC/ISI contract.

> All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this 
> specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to 
> make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let 
> for publishing such standards. 

There is currently an IETF effort underway to define our publication
requirements for the Internet Standards series and other IETF documents, and
that effort is entirely separate from this IAB document.  Whether or not it
should be separate is the subject of another thread of discussion.

> Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI
politely 
> to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term  to ISOC for license to 
> whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. 

I don't actually know who, if anyone, owns these terms.  I don't expect that
they are trademarked or legally owned by anyone, as there is no indication
of that on the RFC Editor web site.  I they were owned by someone, though,
we should be looking to transfer ownership to the IETF Trust not to ISOC.  

Mike, your arguments seem to mainly consist of stating what the structure of
the RFC Editor function was during a period when ARPA was funding it.  I
think I understand what you are saying about how the RFC Editor function was
structured then, but I don't understand why you think it is (or even should
be) structured exactly the same way today.  For many years since the ARPA
funding was withdrawn, the RFC Editor has operated under SOWs from the IAB
and contracts with ISOC, and those documents have been adjusted from
time-to-time to meet the changing needs of the Internet community, the IETF,
and ISI.  Why would you consider the old relationship between ARPA and ISI
to be a definitive source of information regarding today's relationship
between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI?
  
Margaret

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:22:51 -0400

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 draft accurately describe what we are 
currently doing?  I believe so.
2) Do the small changes he proposes to have done make 
sense?  Primarily, those seem to relate providing an appeals path.
3) Are their other changes to the current situation we would like to make?

Lets not arguing about what goes in which contract, or whose pocket 
the money comes from.
Please.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:40:03 -0400

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 you are discussing is, presumably,
draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt.  That is a proposal from John Klensin
to refine the RFC Editor individual submissions path.

Another pertinent draft in this area is draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt, which
is the result of an IETF effort to define our requirements for technical
publication of IETF documents (part of what the RFC editor currently does),
written by Allison Mankin and Stephen Hayes.  There have been BOFs held on
this topic, and there may be a separate mailing list for discussion of this
work.

These documents are all related to each other, and people who are interested
in this topic should probably read all three of them.

Margaret

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:23 PM
> To: Margaret Wasserman; 'Michael StJohns'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control
> 
> 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.
> 
> 2) Do the small changes he proposes to have done make sense?  
> Primarily, those seem to relate providing an appeals path.
> Lets not arguing about what goes in which contract, or whose 
> pocket the money comes from.
> Please.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:42:52 -0400

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 in the charter to reflect what we have 
agreed we want.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern