Hi Dave, I agree with your second observation. It may well be that the current RFC editor model has not *yet* caused a pragmatic problem. I stand to my first assessment, as originally formulated. The main issue is: should the IETF be pro-active on these matters, or not. For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using the RFC series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF over the RFC series). If there were indeed no value beyond traditions, why run any risk, no matter how small? Certainly there must be some risk in giving the RFC editor, rather than the duly appointed IETF officials, the last say in publishing documents that are perceived as IETF documents. I could follow an argument that changing the publication mechanism is large enough a pain to best avoid it, for the small pragmatic gains we may get. Regards, Stephan On 9/9/09 9:19 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Stephan Wenger wrote: >> 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, > > > Stephen, > > First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the > perception. > > Second, you lack empirical data that it is causing a pragmatic problem. > > That is what ought to be the lesson of having repeated this thread every few > years for 20 years ought to be. > > Make a change when you have a demonstrable, real and damaging problem, not > just > something you don't like. > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf