Subject: Re: [INDEP] Issues in draft-klensin-rfc-independent-02.txt

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:23:30 -0400

I share the set of concerns expressed by Craig Partridge.

	We do not have a current problem with independent submissions
being published by the RFC Editor that should not be published.
Further, I am not aware of any historic cases of RFCs being published
that should not have been. [1]

	By contrast, we do have numerous current problems with the
IESG/IETF processes.  In fact, concerns about those processes
are so pervasive that the community (e.g. Newtrk WG) is having
difficulty picking a starting point for fixing the various processes
and related rules.  Given this context, I don't see how adding more
to the IESG (or IAB) responsibility/authority could be helpful
to the broader Internet community or even to the IETF.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

[1] Hint for would-be contracting officers, it is important for any
RFP to evaluate qualitative measures as well as raw editing capability.
The RFC publication function is not purely mechanical; it also requires
good judgement.

_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:47:39 -0400

-------- Original Message --------

> that should not have been. [1]

I am.  But I don't think they're statistically significant, and I can 
cite many more RFCs that were (IMHO) inappropriately approved by IETF 
than those I can site that were (IMHO) inappropriately approved by the 
RFC Editor.  Overall I think the RFC Editor has done a good job at th

That said, while I have confidence in judgment of the current people 
staffing the RFC Editor function, I do not have confidence that the 
mechanisms that are in use (as best I understand them) are adequate to 
prevent abuse of the RFC series via the independent submission path in 
the long term, as (inevitably) other people will eventually be entrusted 
to make those decisions.

> and related rules. 

IMHO most of those concerns are misplaced.  Working group participants 
don't want to blame themselves for their failures, and they insist on 
continuing to do things that don't work well.  When IESG pushes back (as 
they do too seldom, IMHO, given the poor quality of what many WGs are 
producing), IESG gets blamed.

But I agree that adding more workload to IESG probably will not be 
helpful as long as WGs continue to function as they are.

Keith