Hi Mike, > For your quote let's insert a single word in the key sentence "for". > "The Internet Society, on behalf of the IETF, has contracted [for] > the RFC Editor function to the Networking Division of the USC Information > Sciences Institute (ISI) in Marina del Rey, CA." > > See my point? Not really... > Inserting a single word can change the meaning. You can't take a > sentence that may or may not have been written with this attention > to detail and make the assumption that it has the meaning you say it > has. Your edited version still has essentially the same meaning as the paragraph had before. There is a big difference between contracting (for) a function and providing funding for it. You seem to think that ISOC provides philanthropic, no-strings-attached funding for "the RFC Editor", which you have characterized as "an organization". The RFC Editor's own website refers to the RFC Editor as a "function" that ISOC contracts to ISI. That is a big difference, and inserting the word "for" doesn't change that. > A substantial part of ARPA contracting was simply to pay good people > to do good things for the greater good and paying Jon et al was simply > that. The Internet Standards stuff is an add-on to the original charter > of the RFC editor and the old stuff wasn't removed when ISOC started > funding the group - that at least is clear because we're having this > discussion. I think it is great that ARPA provided philanthropic funding for Jon Postel, Joyce Reynolds and others to do the excellent work that they did. I don't know what contracts existed between ISI and ARPA for that work, but I also don't know that they are material to this discussion. Currently, there is a contract between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI for RFC Editor function, and that is what we're discussing now. FWIW, I agree that the contract between ISOC and ISI, which is based on an SOW produced by the IAB, includes the publication of documents that do not go through the IETF Internet Standards process. In fact, the IAB and the IRTF are two of the groups that currently publish RFCs outside of the IETF Internet Standards process, along other groups and individuals. ISOC is currently contracting ISI to provide the full RFC Editor function defined in that SOW, not just the Internet Standards portion. >> "Today, the "Network Working Group" should be interpreted as the set >> of users, vendors, and researchers who are working >> to improve and >> extend the Internet, in particular under the ISOC/IETF umbrella." > > I read that as the Network Working Group is inclusive of the those under > the ISOC/IETF umbrella but includes others, not > exclusive of everyone > else as you seem to imply. I'm pretty sure they (the RFC Editor Staff) > do to. I'm not sure how you could read it that way, because that isn't what "in particular" means... If the RFC Editor wanted to say what you're saying, they could have used the term "including". The RFC Editor is a professional technical editing organization, so I doubt they are as loose with their wording as your interpretation implies. We're probably carrying this analysis too far, though. The document I was quoting was a FAQ on the RFC Editor web site. The only documents that really define the relationship between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI are the SOW (produced by the IAB) and the ISOC/ISI contract. > All I'm saying - all I keep saying is that the focus of the IAB (and this > specific document) should be on the Internet Standards series and how to > make sure its requirements are taken into account when a contract is let > for publishing such standards. There is currently an IETF effort underway to define our publication requirements for the Internet Standards series and other IETF documents, and that effort is entirely separate from this IAB document. Whether or not it should be separate is the subject of another thread of discussion. > Alternately (and for about the third time), suggest someone ask ISI politely > to transfer the RFC series and RFC editor term to ISOC for license to > whatever organization gets selected as the standards publisher. I don't actually know who, if anyone, owns these terms. I don't expect that they are trademarked or legally owned by anyone, as there is no indication of that on the RFC Editor web site. I they were owned by someone, though, we should be looking to transfer ownership to the IETF Trust not to ISOC. Mike, your arguments seem to mainly consist of stating what the structure of the RFC Editor function was during a period when ARPA was funding it. I think I understand what you are saying about how the RFC Editor function was structured then, but I don't understand why you think it is (or even should be) structured exactly the same way today. For many years since the ARPA funding was withdrawn, the RFC Editor has operated under SOWs from the IAB and contracts with ISOC, and those documents have been adjusted from time-to-time to meet the changing needs of the Internet community, the IETF, and ISI. Why would you consider the old relationship between ARPA and ISI to be a definitive source of information regarding today's relationship between ISOC (on behalf of the IETF) and ISI? Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf