Re: "professional" in an IETF context

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 1 Nov 2021 10:06:39 -0400

    Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

          On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at
            11:13 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

          On 10/31/21 3:34 PM,
            Brian E Carpenter wrote:

            > I repeat my suggestion that s/unprofessional/uncivil/
            would fix the 

            > document under discussion. 

            Perhaps it would.   And all other things being equal, a
            simpler fix is 

            attractive.  But I don't know why others seem to insist on
            "professional".

          The reason mybe that it is thought that only who authors
            an RFC is professional.
          As years while checking in IETF context, it is seen some
            new people IETF motivation can be heard that 'you should
            write an RFC', but maybe a better motivation is 'you should
            work/discuss with one WG together regarding one milestone
            for progress.
          If the word 'professional' makes confusion it is better
            to change it, or define it in the document. 
          I totally agree with the definition give by Keith, which
            is in the beginning of thread, so please add it to the
            draft.

    Is that really true, though?  We certainly have a lot of protocols,
    written by amateurs - some of which have ignored RFCs and led to
    their own standards processes.  Are there not RFCs similarly written
    by folks with limited experience?  Or is it that "unprofessional"
    RFCs don't make it past the RFC editorial process?

    Miles Fidelman

    -- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. 
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. 
In our lab, theory and practice are combined: 
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown