On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:17:13 -0800 (PST), Pyda Srisuresh
<srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Right, that is the foced outcome of the current practice. Without an
> independent channel, people find other avenues outside the IETF to get their
> work done.
>
More precisely, to publish their work. My question is why this is bad
for anyone except those who want the "RFC" label on their work. Put
another way, the real question is what "RFC" means. Given the
confusion that already exists in the market ("We implement RFC 1149!"),
I'd rather there were more IETF controls on what bears that label. I'm
not saying it should be completely an IETF publishing venue (though
frankly, I wouldn't mind it at all if the IETF could trademark "RFC"),
but I do think that avoiding gratuitous confusion is a good idea.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf