RE: Comments on draft-iab-rfc-editor: IETF control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]