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

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:48:50 -0400

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 (at least since the IAB
	  Charter, RFC2850; Ran Atkinson dated it back 	
	  to 1992).

	. the IAB is supported by IASA, and therefore the
	  whole of the RFC Editor should be supported by
	  IASA

	. draft-iab-rfc-editor describes how the IAB
	  would shepherd the definition of the independent
	  submissions process, which is about as light
	  a hand as is manageable while keeping the whole
	  consistent.

On that latter point -- [email-masked], the list
for discussing proposals for independent submissions,
has been created:

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

And, to date, the one proposal draft I have seen is

	draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt

Leslie.

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Wednesday, 31 May, 2006 05:02 +1000 Geoff Huston
> <[email-masked]> 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 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.
> 
> While I agree with Geoff, this then makes the question of how
> that charter should be reviewed and approved a critical issue.  
> 
> I'm comfortable having the IAB do that, as long as it is done in
> collaboration with the current RFC Editor staff rather than as
> an independent decision made in an adversarial climate (I don't
> read a requirement for, or an assumption of, an adversarial
> climate into the draft or Leslie's note) and as long as the IAB
> understands that it is responsible to a community that extends
> well beyond the IETF and that may have an affirmative interest
> in views that dissent from IETF (or IESG) decisions and
> positions.
> 
> For those who believe that "the IETF" --presumably as
> represented by the IESG-- should have controlling authority over
> what the RFC Editor does across the board, I'd recommend a
> thought experiment:  As I understand it, none of the support for
> the RFC Editor in recent years (or ever) has come from IETF
> meeting fees.  The support comes from ISOC and the largest
> fraction of that ISOC support is earmarked corporate
> contributions.   Now, with the understanding that I'm neither
> predicting nor advocating this course of action, suppose those
> companies were convinced that an independent RFC Editor
> --independent of IETF control -- was important and that they
> would prefer to fund that and let the IETF take care of itself
> (or, more likely, that they would fund the two separately but
> control the ratios).   It seems to me that would leave us in
> exactly the position others have suggested: the IAB could
> designate the "technical publisher" for IETF documents, but that
> might be an entity completely separate from the RFC Editor and
> the "RFC" name and series might stay with the entity designated
> by ISOC or the relevant sponsors.
> 
> Now, it seems to me that it is in everyone's interest to avoid
> getting anywhere near a state in which a scenario like that
> started being seriously discussed.   Doing so implies, I think,
> a minimum of hubris, a minimum of assertions about IETF
> authority over non-IETF documents, and a maximum of IAB working
> together with the RFC Editor to find a right way forward, rather
> than assuming that one body can dictate to the other.
> 
> That line of reasoning, and the consequences of the thought
> experiment, leads to another conclusion which I would not have
> guessed at a few weeks ago: the IAOC has limited or no authority
> to compete an "RFC Editor contract" to cover tasks other than
> those directly related to the IETF except on the advice and
> consent of the ISOC BoT or some other ISOC entity (in either
> case with the ISOC entity acting as representative of the
> relevant organizational members).  I believe that a
> well-designed RFI process is, at worst, harmless and might
> produce information that would be beneficial to all parties.
> But the assumption that the IAOC can then award a contract that
> covers non-IETF publications may not be reasonable.
> 
> What a strange world our reasoning and desires for more control
> get us into.
>  
>         john
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:37:03 +0200

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 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration,
because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising:
I was the editor of RFC 2850.]

It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994):

       The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of
       the Request for Comments (RFC) document series...

which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992):

      [IAB] responsibilities shall include:

        ...

       (2)  The editorial management and publication of the Request for
            Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
            archival publication series for Internet Standards and
            related contributions by the Internet research and
            engineering community.

I am very puzzled by how you believe that the RFC Editor can be made
answerable to the community otherwise. I would object most strongly
to any notion that the RFC Editor's authority should be self-perpetuating.
I would also object to erecting a new bureaucracy for community oversight,
given that the IAB exists and is put in place by (and can be ejected by)
a community process.

    Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:10:01 -0400

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 under Bob Braden's direction.

2) The RFC Series was first begun in 1969 and was for the most part a 
commentary on the ARPANet experiment until the late 1970's.

3) The RFC editor function was paid for in its entirety by the US 
Government from 1969 until sometime in 1997-98.

4) The IETF didn't begin until 1986.

5) The first lists of "IAB" standards didn't appear until 1988 
(RFC1083) and that document made it clear that standards were only a 
part of what the RFC Editor did.   Note that at that time the author 
of 1083 was listed as "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
Internet Activities Board "  It wasn't for another few years (approx 
1991 I believe) that the split of standards into 
Draft/Proposed/Standard began to be reflected in the successor 
documents to 1083

6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the 
IAB going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how 
far) so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was 
correct, but  to more properly state it "The IAB [in the person of 
the RFC editor] is responsible for editorial management..."  brackets 
mine.  Jon was a polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in 
his life - I'm not surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't 
see its as a distinction with a difference.

7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process.  It 
is not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor.

8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art "RFC 
Editor" or "RFC Series" to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC.  E.g. the 
mere fact the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not 
necessarily give them ownership of that term or the series itself.

Conclusions:

1) The RFC Editor is not just the Internet Standards process.
2) The RFC Series, while it is currently the archival series for the 
Internet Standards, is broader than just that process.
3) The Internet Standards series could be published by another channel.
4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series 
probably vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and 
some other entity.

These facts and conclusions lead me to the conclusion that the RFC 
Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the 
publisher of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC 
Editor.  The IETF/IABs interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to 
those specific roles we ask him to take on for us and must not bleed 
over into to trying to control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization.

With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor 
answerable to the community - I wouldn't.  I'd make the publisher of 
Internet Standards answerable for the publication of Internet 
standards and not interfere in the other work they're doing.  E.g. if 
you don't like what the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move 
the standards series someplace else.  If you do move it someplace 
else, don't expect to constrain what else they do.

If you want that series to be the RFC series - ask ISI nicely for the 
transfer of rights to the IAOC.  Once that happens I'll shut up about 
the need to keep in mind that the RFC Editor and the publisher of 
Internet Standards are two distinct roles.

To be blunt - this is a grab for power.  Certain persons don't like 
the independence of the RFC Editor and want total control over the 
editorial process.  I'm at times minded of state control over 
newspapers in some of our less progressive countries.  I'm pretty 
disgusted we've fallen to this point.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:31:18 +0200

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

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)

> occasion.  I don't think we want that any more.  I certainly don't.

No we don't want that, but we also don't want RFC Editor as directly
part IETF structure or answerable to it for everything it does.

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 Editor 
believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for
its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did not 
go through IETF process).

Such contract can in itself be considered as describing RFC Editor
operations as they relate to IETF and be published as an RFC. But it
would not be an exclusive description of all that RFC Editor does.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:04:07 -0400

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 operational facts
that have governed operation at least in the years since ISOC has
been funding the RFC Editor effort, and offers a way forward
to ensure a continued funded independent series which respects
that history.

I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal; I am not hearing
a viable alternative proposal that respects the governing operational
reality.  I believe pursuing this line of argument overlooks the
intervening history (e.g., *all* RFCs since approx 2000 bear ISOC
copyright; the RFC Editor work was done under contract as "work for
hire").   Worse, I believe pursuing this line of argument can only
lead to a future where the RFC series is split (IETF documents and
not), and the RFC Editor function expires for lack of financial
support.  (I haven't heard your proposal for how that doesn't
happen?).

In short -- the draft is a best effort proposal for establishing
a viable future that respects the history of this function and
gives it a future.  *Please* contribute to making this proposal
better, don't just say it ain't so!

BTW, the discussion of that independent submission stream is at
[email-masked] .

Leslie.

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 5) The first lists of "IAB" standards didn't appear until 1988 (RFC1083) 
> and that document made it clear that standards were only a part of what 
> the RFC Editor did.   Note that at that time the author of 1083 was 
> listed as "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet 
> Activities Board "  It wasn't for another few years (approx 1991 I 
> believe) that the split of standards into Draft/Proposed/Standard began 
> to be reflected in the successor documents to 1083
> 
> 6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the IAB 
> going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how far) 
> so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was correct, but  
> to more properly state it "The IAB [in the person of the RFC editor] is 
> responsible for editorial management..."  brackets mine.  Jon was a 
> polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in his life - I'm not 
> surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't see its as a 
> distinction with a difference.
> 
> 7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process.  It is 
> not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor.
> 
> 8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art "RFC Editor" 
> or "RFC Series" to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC.  E.g. the mere fact 
> the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not necessarily give them 
> ownership of that term or the series itself.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> 4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series probably 
> vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and some other 
> entity.
> 
> 
> Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the publisher 
> of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC Editor.  The IETF/IABs 
> interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to those specific roles we 
> ask him to take on for us and must not bleed over into to trying to 
> control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization.
> 
> 
> With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor answerable 
> to the community - I wouldn't.  I'd make the publisher of Internet 
> Standards answerable for the publication of Internet standards and not 
> interfere in the other work they're doing.  E.g. if you don't like what 
> the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move the standards series 
> someplace else.  If you do move it someplace else, don't expect to 
> constrain what else they do.
> 
> To be blunt - this is a grab for power.  Certain persons don't like the 
> independence of the RFC Editor and want total control over the editorial 
> process.  I'm at times minded of state control over newspapers in some 
> of our less progressive countries.  I'm pretty disgusted we've fallen to 
> this point.
> 
> 
>

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:17:13 -0700 (PDT)

> mandate than IETF standards.

What do you mean "has had"? The way I see it, that "mandate" is still
there!

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:20:17 -0400

>occasion.  I don't think we want that any more.  I certainly don't.

I'm saying that may actually be the right answer for what seems to be 
a desire for control.

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 approves - let's just shut down the RFC series 
and open up an Internet Standards series that gets published by 
placing it on the website - e.g. closer to what we do with the ID series.

If we want an editor (a real editor that is - not just someone with 
the title but just does administrative stuff), then that editor needs 
to have some measure of control over the series and YES a veto for 
publication within that series when the submissions don't meet the 
standards for publication.

I really don't care which at this point, but the IETF can't have it both ways.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:26:02 -0400

At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:

>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 
>Editor believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for
>its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did 
>not go through IETF process).
>

And this is exactly what I believed to be the current relationship 
between the RFC editor and the IETF/IAB/ISOC.  Apparently, the small 
amount of editorial oversight the RFC editor is currently placing on 
the Internet Standards series is perceived as too much by some.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:56:23 -0400

At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>the complete set of facts here:

I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.

>to ensure a continued funded independent series which respects

No, actually it is not consistent.  And I'd bet not legally consistent either.

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.

The IAB may at any time choose to select and gain agreement with 
another organization for the publication of the Internet Standards 
series, either under the imprint of that new organization or under 
its own imprint (e.g. "ISOC's Internet Standards Series").  It could 
even ask the current RFC Editor to publish such an imprint.

"----In the publishing business, an imprint is a brand name under 
which a work is published. "

What the IAB can't do is direct the RFC Editor what it can and cannot 
publish under the RFC imprint.  The RFC Editor can (and has) agree to 
limit what it publishes under the imprint (e.g. the RFC editor won't 
publish competing standards as a way of subverting the process).

>I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal;

No - you understand wrong.  I'm disagreeing with the characterization 
of this document as a charter for the RFC editor.  Change the words 
so that it refers simply to the Internet Standards series, note that 
the series is  currently published under the RFC imprint by the RFC 
editor at ISI and that the funding for the RFC editor comes from ISOC 
and I'll be fairly happy.  This should be a requirements document for 
how you want the Internet Standards publication process to work, not 
a whip to the back of the RFC editor.

Keep in mind that at the end of this the requirements for the 
publication of Internet Standards may be disjoint with the 
requirements for the publication of RFCs.

>  I am not hearing
>hire").

ISOC retains the copyright to the work published - this is true.  But 
the mere fact that ISOC paid for the publication within the RFC 
series does not translate to ISOC owning the RFC series. If the RFC 
series had come into being as a result of the 2000 agreement the 
series might belong to ISOC.  If the RFC series had only published 
Internet Standards since 2000 the series might belong to 
ISOC.  Neither of these are the case and its doubtful ISOC can claim 
ownership of the series regardless if its "ownership" of copyright of contents.

For example, at one point in time the IETF considered publication of 
its standards series with ISO and with IEEE.  Had we done that I'm 
pretty sure we wouldn't today be claiming we owned "IEEE Transactions 
in Internet Standards".

>Worse, I believe pursuing this line of argument can only

And again - this may happen, but its not for the IAB or IETF to be 
trying to specify what the RFC editor can and can't do under its own 
imprint.

You need to step back, separate the publication of Internet Standards 
from the organization actually doing the publication.  Re-write the 
document in a form the describes the requirements the IAB has for 
this one specific task.  If you want the RFC editor to do those 
tasks, get their agreement and more get it written into the 
contract.  If they decide they're done with the process, be prepared 
to start a new series that isn't the RFCs.

The RFC name is not magical - its just historic.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:09:08 -0400

Mike,

> I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.

That's a mischaracterization of what I said, and I'll accept
an apology.

> 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.

No, ISI publishes (all) RFCs under contract from ISOC.

Fact.

<rest deleted>

Leslie.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:11:06 -0400

>That's a mischaracterization of what I said, and I'll accept

You said "I'm not going to engage in a public debate about what 
constitutes the complete set of facts here".  Which I took to mean 
that "What I believe are the facts are indeed the facts and I won't 
be trying to integrate other views of the facts into my world view 
nor will I do you the courtesy of trying to understand your point of 
view on the facts".  Perhaps my flippant comment was a 
mis-characterization and for that I apologize, but it was much milder 
than I was thinking.

>>the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner 
>>of the RFC Series.
>

This can mean either:  "ISOC owns the RFC series and is paying ISI as 
their agent to publish such a series" or "ISI owns the RFC series and 
ISOC is paying them to publish additional documents under that imprint".

I believe the latter is correct absent any offer of proof of transfer 
of rights.

><rest deleted>

You asked for constructive comment.  I provided it. You ignored 
it.  Interesting method for gaining consensus.

---

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:43:54 -0400

Hi Mike,

> 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

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:47:51 -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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:02:54 -0700

> the "RFC Editor", but more recently under Bob Braden's direction.

The series originated at UCLA in 1969, and Steve Crocker was the first
"RFC Editor". ISI was created in 1972, and Jon took over the series as
RFC Editor in the early 1970s.

See RFC2555.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:02:54 -0700

See RFC2555.

Joe

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:08:14 +0000

> placing it on the website - e.g. closer to what we do with the ID series.

	Mike (and others w/ shorter institutional memories) you 
	may recall that there have been several series of Internet
	related documents, of which the RFC series is but one.
	Jon was the IEN archive'est (is that a word?) at the same
	time he was the RFC editor.

	One very reasonable choice, IMHO, is to let the IESG/IAB/ISOC
	folks create a new, unlinked series of Internet Standards
	that does not involve the (apparently) messy problem of
	dealing with material that does not get funneled into its
	fairly rigid suite of processes.  I've not heard a compelling 
	technical reason to "rein-in" the RFC process, only legalistic
	ones.

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:08:14 +0000

--bill