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 20:59:46 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
  The only part of the IESG note that can be
  considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is:

I say again, I examined RFC2524 is some detail, both because it was prior art in an area that was under heavy discussion at the time in Lemonade, and because you'd suggested it be a reference in the Lemonade Profile Bis draft, and concluded that the IESG note was correct in all its points, save that I cannot claim to have enough experience to look at ESRO in detail.

Do you object to:

a) The "censorship" of RFCs based on technical merit? (In other words, would you prefer to be able to publish any technical document, no matter how bad?)

b) That the IESG is providing the technical review needed by the RFC Editor to ensure the RFC series maintains quality?

c) That the RFC Editor chooses to publish the IESG's review, on occasion, in the actual document?

As to your free protocol foundation and whiteberry projects, I'd never heard of either until you brought them up. That's certainly causing no harm. If they were popular projects pulling useful input away from the IETF and Lemonade respectively, I'd classify that as harm.

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]