Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 22:29 17/03/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

Ran,

RJ Atkinson wrote:
  There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents.  I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored
documents.
It may have been true in 1993.

At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond the IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC Editor's output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the motivation for people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; *all* of the funding for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC.

At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better or worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process for other purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should).

But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.
Harald

RFC 3935 claims leadership for the IETF in influencing "the way people design, use and manage the Internet". This is achieved through RFCs and through the IANA, in English. If the NTIA sells the IANA and the RFC Editor is independent from the IETF, this will put the IETF in competition for QA and ethic documents. Would it be bad?. Leadership would then swicth to RFC Editor and IANA and to those able to influence them outside of the IETF. You may recall that IANA has the full right today (MoU with IETF and ICANN) to publish other registries that IETF registries. But who would be globally authoritative? No one, and this would be confusion.

This is the core of our contention over RFC 3066 Bis. You tried to impose the RFC Editor the positions of an external consortium to the IETF. You try to retain, for you and Members of that consortium, the IESG duties concerning its related IANA registries. I oppose you on the grounds of your doctrine. But I think that your approach is pragmatic and consistent with the today nature of the IANA, of the RFC Editor, and of the IETF. And I played on it to in fact win against you, partly at the IETF, mostly outside of it, where I wanted it.

What is proposed today is actually to accept the consequences of this (and hopefully organising it), or to restaure the situation. The questions IMHO are:

- should the IETF _try_ to influence, or should it _want_ to serve, those who design, use and manage the Internet? - should the IETF (which by essence is a protocol engineering/maintenance structure) focus on RFCs or keep consistently documented and updated Internet technology FAQs.This would make it a third equal level entity together with IANA and RFC Editor. A Trinity which may be efficient, but where the IETF still has the capacity to issue RFCs (as IAB, IESG, NSF, IGF, etc.) but where it would maintain the "last word" through its "HOW TO". What is the influence anyone can have with 4200 documents?

jfc






_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]