Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Again, I wish to emphasise that this is completely distinct from the > question of whether anyone ought to do anything about the state of > affairs. I refuse to take a position on that, or even consider it as > a topic for a conversation in which I'll be involved. There are > enough windmills around without us throwing up new ones at which we > can tilt. That's a shame. The standards world is looking for someone who can tilt at the windmills that are the entrenched habits of our day. Who wants to be the hero of that novel? I'm being serious. I agree with you that there is much unhelpful confusion about "RFCs". /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:20 AM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > for example, the second and third. Based on that latter set, I could > claim that "THE" perception is that the RFC series is I am at the best of times uneasy with universal quantifiers, and certainly when talking about THE belief of THE Internet, I feel pretty uneasy. Also, I haven't followed this discussion much, partly because I fully agree with the observation that most of it has been hashed so much, and warmed over so many times, that it's now turned into a form of American breakfast potato. But it doesn't seem to me to be doing favours to anyone to deny the obvious point that there's at least a substantial community of people who regard the label "RFC" as bespeaking "an IETF document" and also "Internet standard". Claiming that it's not true by pointing to examples of careful and clueful definitions (one of which is practically a sockpuppet for the IETF pages themselves) does not clarify this matter. Even organizations involved in the administration of the Internet apparently rely on something "being an RFC" as somehow implying an _imprimatur_ or at least _nihil obstat_ (if anyone wants evidence of that matter, I think the archives of agreements found at ICANN will be instructive). Again, I wish to emphasise that this is completely distinct from the question of whether anyone ought to do anything about the state of affairs. I refuse to take a position on that, or even consider it as a topic for a conversation in which I'll be involved. There are enough windmills around without us throwing up new ones at which we can tilt. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf