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 Mar 19 09:46:30 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
For example, the negative IESG note in the
original HTTP specs and the success of HTTP
demonstrated IESG's attitude and its eventual
relevance.

For the crowd watching who were curious, but not curious enough to bother looking, RFC1945 (HTTP/1.0), which of course is NOT the original HTTP spec at all, carries the note:

The IESG has concerns about this protocol, and expects this document
  to be replaced relatively soon by a standards track document.

RFC2068, HTTP/1.1, was published a little over half a year later, which would appear to be "relatively soon".

Something appears to be wrong with your DNS, so reading your webpages is somewhat impractical.

FWIW, I reviewed EMSD a little while ago, to see whether there was anything worth raising for Lemonade, and decided that the IESG note on that still stands, except more so, as various problems they noted have become more important as time has passed. [For the crowd, EMSD is a wireless replacement for the Submission protocol, but does not support anything but ASCII, has no authentication, and insists on using its own message format in ASN.1]

But back to your argument, which appears to be that if the RFC editor function were utterly independent from the IAB/IETF/IESG, your protocols would have been published without those notes, and without the review those notes required. Which part is the problem, the review, or the note attached to the document?

Dave.
--
          You see things; and you say "Why?"
  But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
   - George Bernard Shaw

_______________________________________________

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]