s/Informational RFCs/independent stream/
If what you're after is RFC == IETF, shouldn't we be eliminating the
independent submission process instead of informational RFCs in
general. Things like RFC 3693 or draft-ietf-geopriv-arch, which don't
specify a protocol, but describe an architecture, seem to properly be
Informational, but still reflect IETF consensus.
On Sep 8, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
I would offer RFC 5211 is PRECISELY the kind of RFC the IETF should
NOT be publishing! I can see the press release now: "IETF publishes
IPv6 transition plan." NO ONE OUTSIDE THE IETF has a clue the RFC
Editor is NOT the IETF. "RFC = IETF" is the *reality*, no matter
how much we say it is not.
For that matter, would the world notice if the press release made
the accurate statement, "The RFC Editor, who publishes all IETF
protocols, publishes IPv6 transition plan"? What rational person
would not make the leap that the IETF published the document?
For that matter, I'm waiting for the ISPs to say, "We're RFC 5211
compliant - we tested one IPv6 node before December 2009!" Or,
"We're RFC 5211 compliant - commercial service is available in West
Podunk, Elbonia, before December 2011!"
There are lots and lots of venues this document could have been
published in, such as the IPv6 Forum, NANOG, INET, IEEE, ACM, etc.
For that matter, it could have gone in Wikipedia. The world did not
need the IETF^H^H^H^H RFC Editor to publish it, too. Ten years ago
I might have agreed that publishing as an RFC could be useful.
However, with a huge plurality of respected, non-protocol-publishing
venues, all searchable on the web and archived forever (thanks
archive.org!), all a publication like this does is dilute the IETF
brand when we actually do publish a protocol or BCP.
On Sep 8, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Eric,
On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Can we please, please, please kill Informational RFC's? Pre-WWW,
having publicly available documentation of hard-to-get proprietary
protocols was certainly useful. However, in today's environment
of thousands of Internet-connected publication venues, why would
we possibly ask ourselves to shoot ourselves in the foot by
continuing the practice of Informational RFC publication?
No, I completely disagree.
My personal recent favorite information RFC is RFC 5211. This
would have never been published by the IETF (IESG, IRTF, or IAB
tracks) and provided an important service for the community.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf