Subject: The Non-IETF Informational RFC Publication Fiction

From: Mohsen BANAN-Public <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -0000

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 primary source of
progress in Internet engineering. The only respectable activity left
for the IAB, IESG, and IETF is to report what others have done. So I
don't find it at all surprising that the IAB and IESG claim to have an
open document series. Unfortunately, the claim is a lie.
----

Unfortunately the situation has become even worse since 1997.

The Non-IETF Informational RFC Publication process has
now become quite Complex.

It now has a Real component and an Imaginary component.

The Imaginary component is that the process operates according to
Section 4.2.3 of the Internet Standards Process (RFC-2026), where the
RFC-Editor is an independent entity and where the scope and purpose of
the IESG review is limited to what that section spells out.

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. IETF/IESG/IAB often inserts notes in Non-IETF Informational RFCs
which go above and beyond the scope and purpose of IESG
review. IETF/IESG/IAB often regards the RFC-Editor as merely its
agent. IESG/IAB has become a group of irresponsible volunteers who
consider themselves accountable to no one.

All concerned in this fiction: IETF/IESG/IAB cult leadership, the cult
members themselves, various behind-the-scenes puppeteers, and Internet
groupies appear perfectly happy with both the Real and Imaginary
components of this Complex setup.

I would also be happy if they would just acknowledge that the
Imaginary part is in fact imaginary.

...Mohsen.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:44:03 -0400

> claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes

Of course it has full ownership.  They're *IETF* RFCs after all.  Just like
Microsoft claims ownership of Microsoft documentation, and the ITU claims
ownership of its recommendations, and the W3C claims ownership of its stuff.

> whatever may want to compete with it or that it does not

Umm.. "quash"?  Recently, we've even handed off HTML to the W3C.
We've not managed to get rid of the ITU, or IEEE, or ANSI yet either.

> which go above and beyond the scope and purpose of IESG

Be glad that the RFC's don't get the markup they so often richly deserve.

> agent. IESG/IAB has become a group of irresponsible volunteers who

Umm.. Mohsen?  THe RFC Editor *IS* an agent of the IETF/IESG/IAB. That's
been understood for well over a decade.

1120 Internet Activities Board. V. Cerf. Sep-01-1989. (Format:
     TXT=26123 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC1160) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

Read section 2...

That's the last I'm going to say on it - although I was prepared to file
this whole thread under "substantiative disagreement", it's tipped well into
"loon filter time"....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:12:06 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 [email-masked] wrote:

> Of course it has full ownership. 

...apart from the actual copyright, which is owned by the Internet
Society, since the IETF/IESG/IAB are not legally formalised. Unlike
the examples below.

L.

> They're *IETF* RFCs after all.  Just like

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Mike Blackstock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:23:14 -0400 (EDT)

> open document series. Unfortunately, the claim is a lie.

Even if the above is true, it's like saying that the only respectable
activity left for Scientific American, Science, and the hundreds of
professional journals in all disciplines is "to report what others
have done". Duh.

What's your point, besides the obvious point of you being a totalitarian
frustrated with consensus-building ???

-Mike