>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson <rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: Ran> It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades Ran> has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited Ran> to just "the IETF community". For openers, the IRTF and IAB Ran> are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously Ran> related and co-operative. More broadly though, the RFC Editor Ran> has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the Ran> IETF for many years now. It would be a mistake to narrow the Ran> RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do. Right on! Ran> Proposed edit: Ran> s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/ Absolutely. Ran> Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the Ran> publication of non-IETF documents. The IETF process properly Ran> should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled Ran> for publication. However, the IETF processes ought not govern Ran> how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the Ran> RFC Editor. Exactly. The RFC Editor's independence needs to be strengthened. Not weakened. The IETF is just one customer of the RFC Publication Service. RFC publication and the RFC Editor predate IETF/IESG/... Since establishment of the IETF, the main innovation in the Internet; the Web; was through a non-ietf RFC publication. It is a good thing that W3C has been using the RFC Publication Service. IETF should not be permitted to interfere with other uses of the RFC Publication Service. Allowing IETF/IESG/... to control the RFC Publication Service will be to the detriment of the broader Internet community. It should be expected of the RFC Editor to publish non-IETF RFCs despite objections from IETF/IESG. How often has this happened? I managed to do it, but it was very difficult. What is being proposed will make things worse. Shortly after this note, I will send two messages dating back to 1998-2000. One is with regard to a complaint against the RFC Editor for lacking a back bone and the IESG for being irresponsible in the case of RFC-2188. My recommendations for a remedy there are consistent with Ran's observations. I had to drive that complaint to be able to publish RFC-2524 despite IESG's objections. See: http://www.emsd.org/communicationRecord/rfc2524Publication/maillist.html for details. Has there been other cases where the RFC Editor chose to publish a RFC despite of IESG's don't publish recommendation? The second is the Policies and Procedures of the Free Protocols Foundation http://www.freeprotocols.org which propose a model for independent entities creating an environment for a market oriented protocol development process. IETF's culthood will be further strengthened, if the RFC Editor's independence was to be further weakened. ...Mohsen _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf