Hi, As it has been pointed out here often, the RFC series is more than just the document numbering scheme for IETF standards. However, if you attend a marketing gathering, a random CS conference, a non-IETF standardization meeting, or even the IETF plenary, a majority of people (probably a large majority) would answer the question "what are RFCs" with "standards set by the IETF", or something thereabouts. This *perception* is important. And changing it means changing the *perception* of a large number of people, for very little value except honoring a 40 year old institution. That's not a value proposition I can easily support. If the IETF is *perceived* as the owner and/or sole contributor to the IETF series, it should have influence up to veto power regarding the content of that series, through its chosen management structure---that is, AFAIK and in this case, the IESG. Otherwise, it cannot stop the publication of documents against its interest. It's pretty clear now that the IESG is not going to get the tools I consider required to influence the RFC editor, due to historical facts and the independence of the RFC editor and its support functions. Is it time that the IETF considers publishing its material elsewhere? Regards, Stephan On 9/9/09 8:32 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Robert Elz wrote: >> | The better question is, if IEEE was distributing the output of the IETF >> in >> | its series of standards publications >> >> You're operating under the mistaken impression that the RFC series is >> IETF standards - it isn't - some of he RFCs are IETF standards, others >> are other IETF publications, and others have nothing to do with the IETF >> at all. It is just a document series that the IETF happens to use as >> a place to publish its output. > > > This is the core point. Some folk want to re-cast the RFC series as structly > subservient to the IETF. But that's not how it has operated for 40 years. > Yes, > folks, 4 decades. > > There is a fundamental difference between "having a strong relationship" > versus > "being subservient". > > In order to make such a basic change, there needs to be a compelling statement > of need for which there is strong community consensus. None has yet been > offered, except the same one that gets repeated every few years, for at least > 20 > years, namely that some folk don't understand the RFC series. Sigh. Yes, > folks, this thread is the same as has been repeated many, many times, > including > the consistent lack of demonstrated damage from the current arrangement. > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf