On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Adam Roach<adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>...
>> Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this is
>> not a change in practice. This is the practice we have had for more than
>> the last 15 years. If, for Independent Submissions, it is that big a
>> problem, I would expect ot have heard of it.
>
> Perhaps I'm just unclear on the frequency of independent submissions -- but
> can you find me an RFC that came from a source other than the IETF that does
> not include a prominent note indicating that fact?
I believe that the Independent Stream should continue to exist and
that IESG notes should be recommendations, rather than mandatory.
Here are some of RFCs of which I was an author that were Independent
Stream submissions, with notes:
RFC1898 CyberCash Credit Card Protocol Version 0.8
This RFC documents a propriety protocol, making the protocol
public. The document internally makes it pretty clear that it came
from CyberCash, Inc., but I wouldn't say there is a "prominent note"
to that effect. It contains statements that could easily be
categorized as marketing. One effect of publishing this RFC was to
preclude later patent claims for the ideas it contained.
RFC2706 ECML v1: Field Names for E-Commerce
This one has an IESG note commenting on its source and noting
technical deficiencies in internationalization. I'm not sure what the
policy was at the time but the IESG was, in effect, doing technical
reviews of such submissions. As an author, I had no objection to the
IESG note as I basically agreed with it. It was obsoleted by:
RFC 3106 ECML v1.1: Field Specifications for E-Commerce
I believe this was also an independent submission. It's IESG note
points out the non-IETF source for these documents and that this work
was moving into the IETF where an IETF working group was working on a
v2. This v2 was later published as RFC 4112 as a Proposed Standard.
Thus, in this case, the independent stream provided a convenient means
to provide some continuity in the publication of work which was
transitioning into the IETF.
RFC 4144 How to Gain Prominence and Influence in Standards Organizations
I submitted this to the IESG, it was assigned to the IETF Chair
who, after reviewing, decided that it was inappropriate for anything
but the Independent Submission stream. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-eastlake-prominence/comment/28295/
Hopefully the above examples give some idea of the range of items
published in the Independent Stream.
Thanks,
Donald
> I'm under the distinct impression that historical practice tagged all (or
> almost all) such documents with a prominent note. The proposed procedure
> tries to make this an extreme exception, not the norm.
>
> /a
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf