Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here: there is no dispute (afaict) that the
RFC Editor series started before the IETF, or that it has had a broader
mandate than IETF standards.
The IAB document is consistent with the operational facts
that have governed operation at least in the years since ISOC has
been funding the RFC Editor effort, and offers a way forward
to ensure a continued funded independent series which respects
that history.
I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal; I am not hearing
a viable alternative proposal that respects the governing operational
reality. I believe pursuing this line of argument overlooks the
intervening history (e.g., *all* RFCs since approx 2000 bear ISOC
copyright; the RFC Editor work was done under contract as "work for
hire"). Worse, I believe pursuing this line of argument can only
lead to a future where the RFC series is split (IETF documents and
not), and the RFC Editor function expires for lack of financial
support. (I haven't heard your proposal for how that doesn't
happen?).
In short -- the draft is a best effort proposal for establishing
a viable future that respects the history of this function and
gives it a future. *Please* contribute to making this proposal
better, don't just say it ain't so!
BTW, the discussion of that independent submission stream is at
independent@xxxxxxxx .
Leslie.
Michael StJohns wrote:
Brian -
In absolute seriousness, I could publish an ID/RFC or other document
that says that I'm the king of the Internet - doesn't make it so.
These are the facts as I understand them.
1) The RFC Series has always been at ISI, originally under Jon Postel
the "RFC Editor", but more recently under Bob Braden's direction.
2) The RFC Series was first begun in 1969 and was for the most part a
commentary on the ARPANet experiment until the late 1970's.
3) The RFC editor function was paid for in its entirety by the US
Government from 1969 until sometime in 1997-98.
4) The IETF didn't begin until 1986.
5) The first lists of "IAB" standards didn't appear until 1988 (RFC1083)
and that document made it clear that standards were only a part of what
the RFC Editor did. Note that at that time the author of 1083 was
listed as "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Internet
Activities Board " It wasn't for another few years (approx 1991 I
believe) that the split of standards into Draft/Proposed/Standard began
to be reflected in the successor documents to 1083
6) The RFC Editor has been either a defacto or dejure member of the IAB
going back pretty much to its inception (I don't know exactly how far)
so saying the IAB was responsible for the RFC series was correct, but
to more properly state it "The IAB [in the person of the RFC editor] is
responsible for editorial management..." brackets mine. Jon was a
polite guy and didn't like a lot of disharmony in his life - I'm not
surprised the language stood as it did - he didn't see its as a
distinction with a difference.
7) The standards RFC STD 1 describes the standardization process. It is
not and has never been inclusive of the other work done by the RFC Editor.
8) I've seen no mention of the transfer of the term of art "RFC Editor"
or "RFC Series" to either the IAB, IETF, or ISOC. E.g. the mere fact
the ISOC pays for the publication of RFCs does not necessarily give them
ownership of that term or the series itself.
Conclusions:
1) The RFC Editor is not just the Internet Standards process.
2) The RFC Series, while it is currently the archival series for the
Internet Standards, is broader than just that process.
3) The Internet Standards series could be published by another channel.
4) The terms RFC Editor and the right to publish the RFC series probably
vest with ISI absent of any other agreement between ISI and some other
entity.
These facts and conclusions lead me to the conclusion that the RFC
Editor is currently the publisher of Internet Standards, the publisher
of Internet Standards is not necessarily the RFC Editor. The IETF/IABs
interest in the RFC Editor must be limited to those specific roles we
ask him to take on for us and must not bleed over into to trying to
control other aspects of the RFC Editor organization.
With respect to your question of how to make the RFC Editor answerable
to the community - I wouldn't. I'd make the publisher of Internet
Standards answerable for the publication of Internet standards and not
interfere in the other work they're doing. E.g. if you don't like what
the RFC editor is doing with your standards, move the standards series
someplace else. If you do move it someplace else, don't expect to
constrain what else they do.
If you want that series to be the RFC series - ask ISI nicely for the
transfer of rights to the IAOC. Once that happens I'll shut up about
the need to keep in mind that the RFC Editor and the publisher of
Internet Standards are two distinct roles.
To be blunt - this is a grab for power. Certain persons don't like the
independence of the RFC Editor and want total control over the editorial
process. I'm at times minded of state control over newspapers in some
of our less progressive countries. I'm pretty disgusted we've fallen to
this point.
At 03:37 AM 6/7/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
...
In the doc "
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor."
This is incorrect.
Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was
in 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration,
because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising:
I was the editor of RFC 2850.]
It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994):
The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of
the Request for Comments (RFC) document series...
which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992):
[IAB] responsibilities shall include:
...
(2) The editorial management and publication of the Request for
Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
archival publication series for Internet Standards and
related contributions by the Internet research and
engineering community.
I am very puzzled by how you believe that the RFC Editor can be made
answerable to the community otherwise. I would object most strongly
to any notion that the RFC Editor's authority should be
self-perpetuating.
I would also object to erecting a new bureaucracy for community
oversight,
given that the IAB exists and is put in place by (and can be ejected by)
a community process.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf