Keith, You have totally confused ESRO with EMSD. RFC-2188 is different from RFC-2524. 1) RFC-2188 (ESRO) As far as I know the RFC-2188 complaint had nothing to do with you. Everything is fully documented. We are talking about historic facts, not opinions. IESG did not object to publication of ESRO (RFC-2188). I declined IESG's invitation to put ESRO on standards track. That was my choice. The problem was that it took 7 months. 2) RFC-2524 (EMSD) You lost. I managed to convince the RFC Editor of the merits of publication. I used the RFC-2188 complaint to strengthen the RFC Editor's independence. There has never been any formal complaints related to RFC-2524. The only part of the IESG note that can be considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is: -- In the near future, the IESG may charter a working group to define an Internet standards-track protocol for efficient transmission of electronic mail messages, which will be highly compatible with existing Internet mail protocols, and which wil be suitable for operation over the global Internet, including both wireless and wired -- links. And that was in 1999. I am curious to know what happened. In the mean time of course there has been the proprietary and patent full BlackBerry. Our real enemy are proprietary patented protocols. It would be hard to argue that existence of the WhiteBerry concept has done any harm. http://www.freeprotocols.org/operationWhiteberry/index.html Back to the topic at hand: Keith> ... I don't see how it's relevant now. Again, all of this is in the context of: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter where the key topics are: - Independence of RFC Publication Service - Relationship of IETF/IESG/IAB with the RFC Publication Service - Use of the RFC Publication Service by the Internet Community Tony gets it: >>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:28:17 -0800, "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> said: Tony> The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who Tony> would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST Tony> NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. The RFC editor Tony> role needs to be extricated from the overbearing IESG and returned to its Tony> independent role. Doing otherwise further fragments the community which will Tony> only lead to its downfall. >From my perspective, based on past performance, the IETF/IESG/IAB can not be trusted to control the RFC Publication Service. ... Mohsen >>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:08:10 -0500, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> said: 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. Keith> I will go on record to say that I was the IESG member who did the most Keith> to discourage publication of your document as an RFC. Contrary to Keith> your perception of things, the RFC Editor published it over my strong Keith> objections, and also insisted on diluting the IESG note that was Keith> originally written for that document. I don't recall the reasons for Keith> the delay other than the high workload of IESG (we were reviewing Keith> dozens of documents per week, the fact that IESG discussed things in Keith> conference calls every two weeks, and there were several iterations of Keith> back-and-forth with the RFC Editor regarding your document. It is my Keith> recollection that your document was handled much more quickly than Keith> working group documents -- because unlike WG documents which proceeded Keith> normally though the IESG's queue (and for which the speed of Keith> processing was sensitive to IESG's workload), the RFC Editor had a Keith> policy of giving IESG a limited amount of time to comment on Keith> independent submissions that had the perverse side-effect of giving Keith> priority to those submissions. Keith> It was and still is my opinion that RFC 2188 was not suitable for Keith> publication as an RFC, as it is poorly designed and has numerous Keith> technical flaws. To have published this document IMHO dilutes the Keith> quality of the RFC series and may confer an undeserved appearance of Keith> acceptance on ESRO. Perhaps more importantly, the discussion about Keith> this document wasted a colossal amount of time that could have been Keith> put to much better use reviewing working group output (on the part of Keith> the IESG) and editing better quality documents (on the part of the RFC Keith> Editor). Keith> As Harald points out, this was eight years ago, and the process has Keith> changed significantly since that time. Also, I'm no longer on the Keith> IESG and don't expect to ever be on the IESG again. Life is too Keith> short. Since all of the circumstances and nearly all of the people Keith> have changed since this incident, I don't see how it's relevant now. Keith> Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf