Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
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.
No, actually it is not consistent. And I'd bet not legally consistent either.
Two organizations: IAB and RFC Editor
Two document series: Internet Standards and RFCs
The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner of the RFC Series.
The IAB may at any time choose to select and gain agreement with another organization for the publication of the Internet Standards series, either under the imprint of that new organization or under its own imprint (e.g. "ISOC's Internet Standards Series"). It could even ask the current RFC Editor to publish such an imprint.
"----In the publishing business, an imprint is a brand name under which a work is published. "
What the IAB can't do is direct the RFC Editor what it can and cannot publish under the RFC imprint. The RFC Editor can (and has) agree to limit what it publishes under the imprint (e.g. the RFC editor won't publish competing standards as a way of subverting the process).
I understand you are disagreeing with that proposal;
No - you understand wrong. I'm disagreeing with the characterization of this document as a charter for the RFC editor. Change the words so that it refers simply to the Internet Standards series, note that the series is currently published under the RFC imprint by the RFC editor at ISI and that the funding for the RFC editor comes from ISOC and I'll be fairly happy. This should be a requirements document for how you want the Internet Standards publication process to work, not a whip to the back of the RFC editor.
Keep in mind that at the end of this the requirements for the publication of Internet Standards may be disjoint with the requirements for the publication of RFCs.
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").
ISOC retains the copyright to the work published - this is true. But the mere fact that ISOC paid for the publication within the RFC series does not translate to ISOC owning the RFC series. If the RFC series had come into being as a result of the 2000 agreement the series might belong to ISOC. If the RFC series had only published Internet Standards since 2000 the series might belong to ISOC. Neither of these are the case and its doubtful ISOC can claim ownership of the series regardless if its "ownership" of copyright of contents.
For example, at one point in time the IETF considered publication of its standards series with ISO and with IEEE. Had we done that I'm pretty sure we wouldn't today be claiming we owned "IEEE Transactions in Internet Standards".
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?).
And again - this may happen, but its not for the IAB or IETF to be trying to specify what the RFC editor can and can't do under its own imprint.
You need to step back, separate the publication of Internet Standards from the organization actually doing the publication. Re-write the document in a form the describes the requirements the IAB has for this one specific task. If you want the RFC editor to do those tasks, get their agreement and more get it written into the contract. If they decide they're done with the process, be prepared to start a new series that isn't the RFCs.
The RFC name is not magical - its just historic.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf