Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

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

 




On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web pages. Fred might note that "cheaper" with his IAOC hat on ;-).

I do indeed. That said, I'm paying for the RFC Editor's office anyway, so not asking them to work on a specific document doesn't necessarily save me money - what would save money is not having them work on a large subset of documents. From my perspective, what is costly in RFC development is the amount of time it takes and the hoops one jumps through to do and to respond to review. It doesn't cost money per se, but it costs time, and in my wallet time is more valuable. 

<heresy>
If you really want to argue that IONs are of value in the sense of not having the RFC editor edit and publish them, the question we want to ask is what the quality of an ION's English grammar (perhaps the RFC Editor's biggest value-add) and how does it compare to that of an RFC? If an RFC is not noticeably better, do we need the RFC Editor's office AT ALL?
</heresy>

Personally, that is a consideration I want to make very carefully; the amount of work the RFC Editor puts into an RFC varies quite a bit (something about the grammar skills of its author), and some documents really benefit from the process. If we were to decide we didn't need the RFC Editor any more, I would expect the IAOC to make consultative editorial services available to working groups so that documents headed to the IESG had already been through that process.

_______________________________________________

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]