Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

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

 



>>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:56:57 +0100, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

  Harald> Mohsen BANAN wrote:
  >> Complaints Against The IESG
  >> and The RFC-Editor
  >> About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

  Harald> The IESG pointed some of the issues out to the RFC Editor, who handled
  Harald> the communication with the author; that was the procedure at that time.
  Harald> Nevertheless, the RFC Editor felt that the document was worthy of
  Harald> publication, and published anyway.

As the written record clearly shows, this is
factually incorrect.

In the case of RFC-2188 the RFC Editor was no more
than an IESG puppet. Publication was held up for
more than 7 months, until finally Scott Bradner
(Transport Area Director at the IESG) made it
happen -- emphatically *not* the RFC Editor. Scott
can step in, if he wishes.

Full communication records are available at:
  http://www.esro.org/communicationRecord/rfc2188Publication/maillist.html

And then there is the communication record of what
happened when the IESG invited us to put ESRO on the
standards track.
  http://www.esro.org/noStdTrack/main.html

  Harald> The IESG note put on this document says:

In general, I consider the garbage that IESG puts
in non-IETF RFCs as a badge of honor for the
author.

For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.

  Harald> In this case [RFC-2524], too, the RFC
  Harald> Editor exercised the RFC Editor's
  Harald> independent judgment and published the
  Harald> document.

Had it not been for my very public RFC-2188
complaint, I do not believe RFC-2524 would have
been published at all.

Please note the time of my complaint and of the
RFC-2524 publication.

How many other non-IETF RFCs have ever been
published by the RFC Editor in the face of IESG
opposition?

I believe the answer is very few if not zero. If I
am wrong, I ask the RFC Editor/IESG to correct the
record. Please name the RFCs.

  Harald> This was eight years ago. ...

Lack of true independence of the RFC Editor was
the issue then, and it is the issue now.

...Mohsen

_______________________________________________

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]