Subject: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:04:45 -0800 (PST)

Complaints Against The IESG
                   and The RFC-Editor
           About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

                      Mohsen Banan
                    [email-masked]

                    November 5, 1998

This is a complaint against the IESG and the RFC-Editor
about publication of RFC-2188 (Efficient Short Remote
Operations - ESRO) as an Informational RFC. A lot went
wrong in the process of publication of RFC-2188.  The
highlights are:

  o The publication of the RFC was delayed for *8 months*
    for no good reason.

  o During the period from the day of submission to the
    day of publication (8 months) there was only one
    technical email exchange related to this RFC and
    the RFC was published exactly as it was submitted
    (plus the IESG note).

  o The IESG was irresponsible and negligent in
    fulfilling its role.

  o The RFC-Editor was negligent in fulfilling its
    role.

  o In practice, the publicized processes and
    procedures for the Informational RFC publication
    were not being followed neither by the IESG and nor
    by the RFC-Editor.

  o In practice, RFC-Editor was reduced to a puppet of
    IESG acting as a glorified secretary and an
    inefficient messenger.

  o The IESG over stepped the scope of its authority
    and displayed an arrogant an dictatorial attitude
    which caused serious delays in the publication of
    the RFC.

I (Mohsen Banan -- [email-masked]) have used very
strong words in the above list to characterize the
problems in this specific case.  Use of those words are
in no way extreme.  Use of ALL of those words are
justified in this message.

The fact that a lot went wrong in the case of
publication of RFC-2188 is known to many.  Steve Coya
and Scott Brander have admitted that there were a
number of problems and have apologized for them.

  Scott Bradner> ... the iesg fucked up and I'm trying to fix the issue ...

  Steve Coya> You DO have a valid complaint, but not with the RFC Editors.

  Scott Bradner> ...  As I said things slipped through
  Scott Bradner> the cracks and I am sorry that happened. ...

I accepted their apologies and after the publication of
RFC-2188 I was going to let this drop.  However, since
then I have seen even more evidence of the IESG being
way out of control and now feel that something needs to
be done.

This note is complete and includes all that is
necessary to allow people to judge for themselves the
validity of my complaints.

My goal is to PRESERVE the so far mostly open
Informational RFC publication process from censorship
by the likes of IESG. We need to find a way to ensure
that what went wrong in this case never happens again.
I am preparing this complaint because I think that it
can help a number of areas which are critical to the
continued success of the Internet.

In the absence of any sort of accountability by the
IESG and the RFC-Editor to anyone, I am hoping that
peer pressure and public embarrassment can be used as
tools to bring the IESG under control and restore the
Information RFC publication process to the open process
that it is supposed to be.

Internet Standards are better than other standards
because we realize that no entity (IETF/IESG/IAB) has
exclusivity on good ideas.  Many (if not most)
good/successful Internet protocols have come from
outside of committees, task forces, groups or boards.
(If you are looking for examples, consider the web.)

Fair and equitable access to the RFC publication
service is fundamental to the success and growth of the
Internet.  Good protocols (as well as bad protocols)
coming from outside of the IETF should have access to
the RFC publication service, so that they can be used
and even sometimes compete with IETF/IESG work.  The
network and the market place ultimately decides the
winners and the loosers.

Now, my experience with the publication of RFC-2188 has
convinced me that:

  o the IESG frequently abuses its authority and in
    fact is allowed to delay the publication of RFCs
    indefinitely and even engage in censorship of
    material that it just does not like or that it does
    not understand.

  o both the IESG and the RFC-Editor operate with an
    "authority" oriented attitude as opposed to a
    "responsibility" oriented attitude.

  o in practice there are not adequate checks and
    balances in the process to guard against mistakes
    by the IESG or the RFC-Editor.

If any of the above is true we have a problem.
Unfortunately, this note clearly demonstrates that all
of the above were true in the case of RFC-2188.  I am
also now convinced that the problems in the case of
RFC-2188 were not isolated to that case alone.  There
is a serious problem.

The rest of this note substantiates my claims about the
problem.  Because this deals with a concrete and
specific case, because it deals with history of what
has already happened, because it is a complete case, I
hope that this note can be used to identify and fix the
serious problems that exist.

Because this note is documentation of a complete case,
it is somewhat lengthy.

This note is organized in 4 sections.

 1. A summary analysis of the publication process for
    non IETF Informational RFCs both in "theory" and
    in "practice".

 2. Recommendations For Improvements.

 3. Summary of ALL The Communications Records from the
    date of submission to the date of publication.

    In this section, I substantiate all of the above
    mentioned claims and problems.

 4. A Message Digest for ALL email exchanges from the
    date of submission to the date of publication.

Info RFC Publication In Theory and in Practice
==============================================

In theory, "The Internet Standards Process" (BCP-9,
RFC-2026) defines at a high level a very reasonable
process for publication of non IETF protocols as
Informational RFCs.  The problem is that in practice
that process is not followed.  The IESG is allowed to
indefinitely delay the publication of RFCs or simply
reject them because the IESG does not get them or
because the IESG does not like them.

Info RFC Publication In Theory
------------------------------

The highlights of the process of publication of non
IETF protocols as Informational RFCs (taken from
sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of RFC-2026) are:

  o Informational designation does not represent an
    Internet recommendation of any sort.

  o Publication of Informational RFCs is supposed to be
    "timely".

  o The RFC-Editor (and NOT the IESG) is responsible
    for determining suitability for publication based
    on:

    -- Relevance to Internet activity

    -- Meets the technical standard for RFCs

    -- Meets the editorial standard for RFCs

  o The RFC-Editor refers the document to the IESG for
    review which is to be in a timely manner.  The
    scope of IESG's review of the document is to
    identify areas of overlap with on going or future
    IETF activities.

    -- The IESG can recommend that the document be
       brought in the IETF.

    -- The IESG can determine that the document
       conflicts with or is inimical to an established
       IETF effort.

       In that case the document may still be published
       as an Informational RFC with an IESG disclaimer.

This process is very reasonable.  Irrelevant or
sub-standard specifications (such as Internet Porn
Protocol - IPP) will be stoped by the RFC-Editor.
Reasonable protocols get a chance to be published in a
timely manner.  The IESG is not allowed to censor
anything in favor of its own activities or opinions.

Practice
--------

In practice the role of the RFC Editor for documents
coming from outside of the IETF/IESG/IAB has been
reduced to that of a glorified clerk of the IESG. In
other words in practice the IESG has already expanded
its limited role as a conflict detector to a
commentator and the authorative reviewer and the final
decision maker.

In practice, the RFC Editor is not in charge the IESG
is.

Neither the IESG, nor the RFC Editor have any respect
for the requirement of "timely" processing of the non
IETF Informational RFCs.

Un-Answered Questions
---------------------

During the process of publication of RFC-2188 when it
became obvious that the process being followed is not
that of BCP-9.  I started asking the following
questions.  These questions were asked a number of
times from the RFC-Editor and the IESG. They have never
responded to any of them.  They remain unanswered.

  o What process is the RFC Editor following for the
    publication of Informational RFCs (since it clearly
    is not the process define in BCP-9)?

  o What do "reasonable period of time" and "timely"
    mean to the RFC Editor and the IESG?

  o What does the IESG think the scope and purpose of
    its review of the non IETF RFCs are?

  o What is the RFC Editor expected to do when the IESG
    does not review the document in a reasonable period
    of time?

  o Who do the RFC Editor and the IESG find themselves
    accountable to?

  o What should the Author of an RFC do when its
    repeated questions and concerns are simply ignored?

In light of everything that happened in the case of
RFC-2188, I consider all of these questions valid and
legitimate.  These questions have been asked many times
to no avail.  They remain unanswered.

Recommendations For Improvements
================================

Because of the RFC-2188 experience and other
interactions that I have had with the IESG and the
RFC-Editor, I have some suggestions for improving the
non IETF Informational RFC publication process and
practice.

  o Recognize what IESG really is and what its role is
    supposed to be.  Limit the IESG's role to what it
    is supposed to be.

    The IESG is a hand-full of volunteer engineers with
    a fancy group name.  Based on my interactions with
    them, I have concluded that they hardly reach the
    "average" level of competence in my book -- both
    in their technical and in their management
    abilities.  The IESG often has little relevant
    experience and knowledge in the specialized subject
    matter of the RFCs that it needs to review.

  Instead of functioning in its limited co-ordination
  and conflict detector role as defined in section
  4.2.3, in practice the IESG has already expanded
  its own role and has assumed ultimate authority
  over publication/non-publication of non IETF
  originated Informational RFCs.

  The IESG should not be permitted to engage in
  censorship or delay of publication of work coming
  from outside of IETF because they just don't like
  it, because they don't understand it, because they
  think that it may be competing with IETF/IESG work
  or because they think that it may be bad for the
  Internet.

  Based on the case of RFC-2188, I have concluded
  that the IESG is out of control and irresponsible.
  It needs to be checked and managed.

o Strengthen the RFC-Editor's Role.

  In practice the role of the RFC Editor for
  documents coming from outside of the IETF/IESG/IAB
  has been reduced to that of a glorified clerk of
  the IESG.

  If and when the IESG does not complete its review
  of the refered documents, it is the RESPONSIBILITY
  of the RFC Editor to go ahead and publish the
  document.  The RFC Editor should not permit the
  IESG to introduce long delays in the publication of
  documents.

  The RFC Editor should ensure that the IESG note
  going into an Informational RFC is in fact
  reasonable and correct and provide the author an
  opportunity to see the IESG note prior to
  publication.

  The RFC Publication Service can benefit from
  additional resources.  I am pretty sure that
  getting funding for such a critical service is not
  going to be difficult if we look at it the right
  way.

o Ensure that the procedures of BCP-9 are followed in
  practice.

  The spirit of sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of BCP-9 is
  just right.

  However, the case of RFC-2188 clearly shows that in
  practice the procedures of BCP-9 are not being
  followed.

  We need to find a way to make sure that what BCP-9
  says is in fact what happens.

o Introduce more accountability, structure and order
  to the RFC publication service.

  Tighten BCP-9 to be more clear about minimum
  technical requirements for RFCs.  Introduce an
  appeals process for when a document is rejected.
  More clearly define "timely"...

  Provide mechanisms that safeguard against mistakes
  and negligence by the IESG or the RFC Editor.

  Define specifically, what is supposed to happen
  when the IESG does not complete its limited review
  in a timely manner.

  Re-orient everything towards responsibilities of
  the publication service providers instead of their
  authorities.

o Separate The RFC Publication Service from the
  IETF/IESG/IAB.

  The RFC Editor task is primarily a Publication
  Service.  The IETF/IESG/IAB is JUST one of the
  users/customers of the the RFC Publication Service.

  There has been talk of putting the RFC Publication
  Service under management and funding of
  IETF/IESG/IAB/ISOC. That would be totally wrong.

  There is an obvious inherent problem with allowing
  a common Publication Service to be managed and
  funded by one of its users.  The problem is that
  IETF/IESG/IAB is likely to claim control over the
  entire RFC Publication Service and delay the
  publication or exclusion of protocols coming from
  outside of it and suppress standards competition
  even more.

  Clear separation of powers is a good thing.  It is
  a good way of introducing accountability and checks
  and balances.

  A powerful and independent RFC Editor role which
  would oversee a fair and equitable RFC Publication
  service is ESSENTIAL for the Internet.

  In practice, the RFC Editor role has been weakened
  over the years.  We need to strengthen it.

Limiting IETF/IESG/IAB's role in the RFC Publication Process
------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at what needs to happen in the bigger
picture.  Standardization process iterates through 4
essentially distinct steps.

1) Development of the Protocol. IETF/IESG are just one
    of the entities developing protocols.  Many good
    protocols are developed by non-standards related
    entities.

2) Publication of the Protocol. A wide open, quick and
    fair publication service is needed to allow for
    anyone who wants to build or play with protocols to
    have access to its specification.  The fundamental
    characteristics of the RFC Publication Service for
    the most part have been working real well.  Any
    relevant protocol coming from essentially anywhere
    which meets a minimum technical and/or editorial
    standard should have speedy access to the RFC
    Publication Service.

3) Use of the Protocol. If it is anything useful and is
    done right, it will be used.  How it gets used is
    very important and unpredictable.

4) Blessing of the Protocol. Some entity (e.g.,
    IETF/IESG/IAB) blesses the protocol by putting some
    label on it.  Although necessary, this function is
    mostly ceremonial.  The real legitimacy comes from
    usage and the market place.

Without a question, IETF/IESG/IAB should play some role
in step (1).

Without a question, IETF/IESG/IAB need to focus on step
(4).

But, I am saying that putting step (2) under management
and funding of IETF/IESG/IAB/ISOC is WRONG. Because it
has the potential of further suppressing the results of
step (1) coming from outside of IETF/IESG.

Note, that I don't have a problem with the spirit of
the relationship between The RFC-Editor and
IETF/IESG/IAB/ISOC as described in BCP-9.  My point is
that by making step (2) completely and truly
independent of management and funding by
IETF/IESG/IAB/ISOC, we will bring about the necessary
checks and balances that are needed for a healthy
overall process which needs to even encourage
competition in step (1).

Summary Of The Communication Records in Chronological Order
===========================================================

All the communication between the Authors, the RFC
Editor and the IESG were in the form of email
exchanges.  There were no phone calls or face-to-face
conversations of any sort.

The email exchanges are factually summarized below and
reference to the actual email is included.

Jan 11, 97 -- Authors To RFC-Editor: Mark Taylor (then
    of AT&T) submitted the ESRO protocol for
    publication as an Informational RFC.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

Jan 15, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor: Shortly after
    that (on 1/15/97) I incorporated IANA's port
    assignment for the ESRO protocol and resubmitted it
    to the RFC-Editor.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

Jan 23, 97 -- RFC-Editor To Authors: On January 23rd,
    the RFC editor acknowledged receipt and placed it
    in the publication queue and forwarded it to the
    IESG/IETF for their review.
    (Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>)

Jan 29, 97 -- RFC-Editor To IETF-Announce: The ESRO
    protocol was put in the internet drafts directory
    on January 29th.
    (Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>)

March 31, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor: On March
    31st I checked on the current status of this RFC
    and expressed our desire to see it published soon.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

April 3, 97 -- RFC-Editor To Authors: On April 3th we
    were told that The IESG had requested that the ESRO
    document not be published at this time and that
    they would be in contact with us after their
    meeting that coming week in Memphis.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

April 3, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor: I
    immediately replied requesting an explanation of
    this delay and the name of the relevant IESG
    contact person.  I again offered to discuss and
    respond to questions/comments regarding the ESRO
    protocol.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

    At that time our only contact point was the RFC
    Editor.  The Editor neglected to reply to that
    message.  Those questions remain unanswered even
    today.  Had the RFC Editor responded to that
    message in April, we would have saved a lot of
    time.  The above instance alone justifies my fair
    use of the word "negligently" with respect to the
    RFC Editor.

July 28, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor: Having not
    heard from the RFC Editor since April 3rd (nearly 4
    months), I prepared a detailed message which
    explained that the RFC Editor and IESG's treatment
    of this RFC is totally unreasonable.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

July 28, 97 -- RFC-Editor To Steve Coya: The RFC Editor
    (Mary Kennedy) forwarded my message to Steve Coya.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 4, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor and Steve Coya:
    At that time (6 months after initial submission and
    a week after my previous detailed request for
    explanation) Steve Coya and the IESG had still not
    responded to ANY of our messages and requests.
    Our repeated requests for an explanation kept being
    ignored.  The IESG's actions up to that point
    combined with their dictatorial attitude and
    arrogance at that point, at a minimum, justifies my
    use of the words "negligent" and
    "irresponsible".
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 4, 97 -- Steve Coya to Authors: After more than
    6 months, this is the first time that anyone at the
    IESG has communicated with us.  In that message,
    Steve Coya tells us that the IESG requested that
    the document not be published.  This is a clear
    violation of the procedures of BCP-9.  No where in
    RFC 2026 is the IESG given the authority to stop
    the publication of a non IETF Informational RFC.
    Now, add to that the level of arrogance that says
    IESG can ignore the Authors' inquiries for 6 months
    and provide no explanation what-so-ever to why IESG
    has prevented the publication of the RFC. Then add
    to it, that later it becomes clear that Steve Coya
    was just wrong.
    (Message-ID: <[email-masked]>)

August 4, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott Bradner
    tells us that it appears that it might be worth
    while to issue an IETF last call on it and advance
    it as a proposed standard!  Obviously that was
    contradictory to what Steve Coya had said earlier
    that same day.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 4, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    re-iterate the sense of urgency here.

August 6, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I check
    on status of progress and mention that a lot has
    gone wrong so far and that is why we are impatient.

August 6, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott Bradner
    tells me that no abuse should be directed towards
    the RFC Editor.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 7, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    explain that my use of the words "irresponsibly and
    negligently" do not constitute abuse towards the
    RFC Editor.  And I justify them again.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 7, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Mohsen BANAN: Scott
    Bradner in a message only to me suggests that if I
    can't see that the tone of my messages are abusive,
    I should talk to a friend.
    (Message-Id:     <[email-masked]>)

    I do not consider this a personal or private
    message.  On a personal level, I wish to have no
    relationship what-so-ever with anyone on the IESG.
    I simply want them to fulfill their particular
    responsibilities with respect to facilitation of
    publication of my Informational RFCs.

    The key point not to be missed here is that if the
    IESG has been doing its job, we would not be
    discussing the tone of my messages.

    I did not dignify that message with a response.

August 7, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott Bradner
    tell us that ex-transport co-AD feels that this ID
    represents a significant technical contribution and
    feels that it should be advanced on the IETF
    standards track.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

    Scott Bradner asks us to choose between the
    Informational RFC publication route or the Proposed
    Standard route.

August 8, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: The
    Authors choose the Informational RFC route because
    the urgency for publication in this case outweighs
    our interest in getting this document on the
    standards track.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 8, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott Bradner
    asks:  What is causing this feeling of urgency?
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 8, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    explain.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 17, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott
    Bradner informs us of his recommendation of ESRO
    for publication and that he hopes we will put this
    specification on standards track when it is ready.
    (Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>)

August 17, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    thanked him and said that I will.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 18, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott
    Bradner forwards a technical comment from Harald
    Alvestrand to the Authors.  This is the *ONLY*
    technical comment that we ever received from the
    IESG or the RFC Editor.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 18, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    respond to that technical comment.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

August 28, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I
    explicitly ask that he keeps me posted on his
    communications with the RFC Editor related to this
    RFC.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

    If there was to be an IESG Note, I wanted to have a
    chance and see it before publication.

August 28, 97 -- Scott Bradner to Authors: Scott
    Bradner informs us that he publication was approved
    by the IESG. But does not mention anything about
    the IESG note.
    (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

September 9, 97 -- Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner: I ask
    about the expected publication date.

September 9, 97 -- RFC Editor to IETF-Announce: The RFC
    Editor announces publication of RFC-2188.

The text of RFC-2188 is materially same as what we
submitted to the RFC Editor on Jan 15, 1997, with
the exception of the IESG note.

To our surprise we discovered the following IESG
note in our RFC.

---
IESG Note

   This protocol has not had the benefit of IETF Working Group review,
   but a cursory examination reveals several issues which may be
   significant issues for scalability.  A site considering deployment
   should conduct a careful analysis to ensure they understand the
   potential impacts.
---

A few key points about this IESG Note:

 o The Authors were never given a chance to know
   about any of the issues that the note implies,
   even-though I had explicitly asked to be
   informed of communications related to this RFC.

 o After delaying the publication for 8 months, why
   is the IESG Note based on "a cursory
   examination".

 o If that IESG Note is true, then why were the
   Authors not given a chance to know about them
   and fix them?

 o If that IESG Note is true, then why did the Area
   Director want to put it on the Standards Track
   and issue a Last Call for it?

 o The IESG note is so vague that up until recently
   I thought that it was about the wrong perception
   of limitations of Service Access Points -- which
   was the ONLY technical issue that was ever
   discussed with the Authors.  How can the IESG
   expect that such an unsubstantiated vague
   comment be of use to anyone?  The best I can
   gather, this appears to have just been a "power
   trip" by an out of control IESG.

 o I am not saying that RFC-2188 is perfect and
   that no IESG note should have ever been put in
   it.  I am saying that the IESG note that was put
   in there was done the wrong way and is of little
   use, if any.

If any of my employees were to ever be responsible for
a small fraction of the types of arrogance, negligence
and mistakes that were commited during the process of
publication of RFC-2188, I would fire or demote them
immediately.

But, the IESG is a collection of volunteers which
answers to no one.

Unless we can find a way to deal with problems like
this and fix them, I am afraid that arrogance,
negligence, irresponsibility and incompetence will be
institutionalized inside of the IESG.

Complete Message Digest
=======================

ALL of the messages related to this case that I originated or received
starting from the time of initial submission up until the time of
publication of the RFC are included as 30 email messages below.  Other
than deleting the attachments of the original specification and
deleting duplicate message digests, these messages have not been
edited in any way.

My interactions with individulas at the IESG and the
RFC Editor were in the context of them functioning in
their roles as Service Providers. I consider none of
these email messages private, personal or confidential.

------- start of digest (30 messages) (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
From: Mark Taylor <[email-masked]>
To: rfc editor <[email-masked]>
Cc: JiaBing Cheng <[email-masked]>,
        "Jim Grams (Corporate)" <[email-masked]>,
        mst <[email-masked]>,
        "'Mohsen Banan (Neda)'" <[email-masked]>,
        "'Murat Divringi (Neda)'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Informational RFC Submission Request -- ESRO Protocol
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 13:00:00 PST
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Please accept this informational RFC for Efficient Short Remote Operations 
(ESRO), a protocol we have developed over the past two years.  In this 
context, "we" refers to AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., and Neda 
Communications, Inc. (under contract to AT&T).  I am the Director of 
Strategic Engineering in the Wireless Data Division of AT&T Wireless 
Services.

The purpose of the ESRO protocol is to better support applications such as 
Email over low-bandwidth media, such as Cellular Digital Packet Data or 
other wireless services.  The editor for this informational RFC is Mohsen 
Banan, of Neda Communications (who can be reached at [email-masked]).

We have requested a port number assignment from IANA for this protocol on 
January 9, 1997; the RFC editor was sent a copy of this request.  Following 
the assignment of a port number, section 4.6.3 will require a corresponding 
modification.  Mr. Banan can provide a LaTeX-revisable version of this RFC.

Please direct all future correspondence regarding this RFC to Mr. Banan at 
[email-masked] with a courtesy copy to Mr. Jia-bing Cheng of AT&T at 
[email-masked].  Thank-you in advance for your assistance in the 
publication of this RFC.

Regards,

Mark Taylor
Director of Strategic Engineering
AT&T Wireless Services
10230 NE Points Dr.
Kirkland, WA  98033
[email-masked]

 ------The   RFC is a text file attached below  -------
[[ ESROS.TXT : 3408 in ESROS.TXT ]]
------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: JiaBing Cheng <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
        "Mark S. Taylor" <[email-masked]>,
        Murat Divringi-neda <[email-masked]>,
        Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Update: Informational RFC Submission Request -- ESRO Protocol
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 23:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Following through with Mark Taylor's email of January 11, 97, I have
incorporated IANA's port assignment for the ESRO protocol in section
4.6.3. I have also made other minor editorial changes to other
sections. The attached updated Informational RFC is now ready for your
review and publication.

If you want to also have the LaTeX revisable form of
this RFC, please drop me -- Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]> -- a note.

Let me know if you have any questions or if you want us to modify the
document in any specific way.

Thank you in advance.

...Mohsen.

------------------------------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Update: Informational RFC Submission Request -- ESRO Protocol
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:43:49 -0800
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen-

We have received your RFC-to-be and have placed it in the publication
queue. We have forwarded it to the IETF for their review.

Sincerely,

Mary Kennedy - USC/ISI
Request for Comments Documents

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Status of publication of  ESRO Protocol as an Informational RFC
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:43:49 -0800, [email-masked] said:

  rfc-ed> Mohsen-

  rfc-ed> We have received your RFC-to-be and have placed it in the publication
  rfc-ed> queue. We have forwarded it to the IETF for their review.

  rfc-ed> Sincerely,

  rfc-ed> Mary Kennedy - USC/ISI
  rfc-ed> Request for Comments Documents

Can you please let us know what the status of publication of ESRO
Protocol as an Informational RFC is?

When do you expect to publish it as an RFC?

The initial Submission of this RFC was January 11, 1997.

It was made available in the on-line Internet-Drafts directories 
on Jan 29, 97.

       Title     : AT&T/Neda's Efficient Short Remote Operations (ESRO) 
                   Protocol Specification Version 1.2                      
       Author(s) : M. Banan, M. Taylor, J. Cheng
       Filename  : draft-rfced-info-banan-esro-00.txt
       Pages     : 47
       Date      : 01/29/1997

We have received no feed-back on it since (neither from IETF, nor from
the RFC Editor, nor from anybody else).

My understanding of the publication process based on BCP-9/RFC-2029
"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" Section 4.2.3 is that:
   "... The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this publication [in
   the I-D directory] for comments before proceeding further. ...."

draft-rfced-info-banan-esro-00.txt has been in the I-D directory for
more then 2 months now.

The Informational designation is intended to provide for timely
publication. That is one of the reasons why we submitted ESRO with
Informational designation.

We would like to refer to ESRO Protocol as an RFC in the near future.

Please let us know how we can help expedite the publication of ESRO as
an Information RFC.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

- --
	Mohsen Banan
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-206-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-206-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]
            U.S.A. 				URL: http://www.neda.com/

------------------------------
From: [email-masked] (RFC Editor)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Status of publication of  ESRO Protocol as an Informational RFC
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:57:01 -0800
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Moshen--

The IESG requested that your document not be published at this time.
They will be in contact with you after their meeting this coming week
in Memphis.

Sincerely,

Mary Kennedy - USC/ISI
Request for Comments Documents

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (RFC Editor)
Cc: [email-masked], Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>,
        [email-masked], Pean Lim-Neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Status of publication of  ESRO Protocol as an Informational RFC
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:57:01 -0800, [email-masked] (RFC Editor) said:

  RFC-Editor> Moshen--

  RFC-Editor> The IESG requested that your document not be published at this time.
  RFC-Editor> They will be in contact with you after their meeting this coming week
  RFC-Editor> in Memphis.

  RFC-Editor> Sincerely,

  RFC-Editor> Mary Kennedy - USC/ISI
  RFC-Editor> Request for Comments Documents

Can you please let us know generally what the reason for the delay is?

That document has been in the draft directory for more than 60 days
and we have heard no comments about it.

Can you tell us who the IESG contact person is for this Informational
RFC?

Non of the ESRO authors were planning to participate in the Memphis
IETF. But, may be we can participate in the IESG meeting and address
relevant questions and issues over the phone. Of course, I'll be happy
to respond to questions/comments through email as well.

Based on my understanding of the process of Informational RFC
publication (RFC-2026 Sections 4.2.2 & 4.2.3), IESG's review relates
to conflicts of the domain of the document with work that is being
done or is expected to be done, within the IETF community. Is there a
conflict?

Sincerely,

- --
	Mohsen Banan
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-206-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-206-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]
            U.S.A. 				URL: http://www.neda.com/

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
CC: "Mark S. Taylor" <[email-masked]>,
        Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>,
        Pean Lim-Neda <[email-masked]>, Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational RFC (ESRO Protocol)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

More than 6 month ago we submitted the ESRO protcol for publication as
an Informational RFC. It has not been published yet. Our requests to
find out what the reason for the delays are, remain unanswered.

This is unreasonable!

We expect to see the ESRO protocol published as an Informational RFC as
soon as possible.

More than 6 months ago (on 1/11/97) Mark Taylor (then of AT&T)
submitted the ESRO protocol for publication as an Informational RFC.
(Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

Shortly after that (on 1/15/97) I incorporated IANA's port assignment
for the ESRO protocol and resubmitted it to the RFC-Editor.
(Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

On January 23rd, the RFC editor acknowledged receipt and placed
it in the publication queue and forwarded it to the IETF for their review.
(Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

The ESRO protocol was put in the internet drafts directory on January
29th. (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

On March 31st I checked on the current status of this RFC and
expressed our desire to see it published
soon. (<[email-masked]>)

On April 3th we were told that The IESG had requested that the ESRO
document not be published at this time and that they would be in
contact with us after their meeting that coming week in Memphis.
(Message-Id: <[email-masked]>) 

I immediately replied requesting an explanation of this delay and the
name of the relevant IESG contact person.  I again offered to discuss
and respond to  questions/comments regarding the ESRO protocol.
(Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)

The above mentioned 7 messages are attached to the end of this
message.

Since April 3rd, we have not heard back from the RFC-Editor or the
IESG regarding this Informational RFC.

The Informational designation is intended to provide for timely
publication. That is one of the reasons why we submitted ESRO with
Informational designation.

Considering that there has been adequate time (nearly 6 months) for
the RFC Editor, the IESG, the IETF and the technical Internet
community at large to review and comment on this document and that
there has been no comments, again I request that the document be
promptly published as an Informational RFC.

It is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the RFC Editor
to over see publication of Informational RFC according to the process
described in BCP-9/RFC-2026 in a timely manner. It is unreasonable and
unprofessional for IESG (or anybody else) to delay publication of an
Informational RFC without providing any reason or explanation. I don't
understand the reason for the RFC Editor and the IESG's failure of
following the process defined for publication of Informational RFCs in
the case of this document.

We have done a significant amount of work on the specification and
implementation of this useful protocol. We want to make it easy for
others who wish to implement this protocol to access this document.
Publication of this document as an Informational RFC accomplishes
that. 

To the best of our knowledge there is nothing in the document that
proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
established IETF effort. 

In short, this document has been in the queue for publication long
enough. There has been ample time for through reviews. Since there has
been no comments, I insist that RFC Editor publish it as an
Informational RFC without any further delay.

Regards,

- --
	Mohsen Banan
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-206-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-206-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]
            U.S.A. 				URL: http://www.neda.com/

- ------- start of digest (7 messages) (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
....
- ------- end -------

------------------------------
From: [email-masked] (RFC Editor)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational RFC (ESRO Protocol)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:39:59 -0700
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Steve:

Can you please look into this situation?

Thanks,

Mary Kennedy
Request for Comments Documents
- -------------------------------------

> From [email-masked] Tue Jul 29 00:02:17 1997
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked], Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Mark S. Taylor" <[email-masked]>,
>         Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>,
>         Pean Lim-Neda <[email-masked]>, Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational RFC (ESRO Protocol)
> X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
> Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=US-ASCII> 
> Content-Length: 18230
> 
> 
> 
> More than 6 month ago we submitted the ESRO protcol for publication as
> an Informational RFC. It has not been published yet. Our requests to
> find out what the reason for the delays are, remain unanswered.
> 
> This is unreasonable!
> 
> We expect to see the ESRO protocol published as an Informational RFC as
> soon as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> More than 6 months ago (on 1/11/97) Mark Taylor (then of AT&T)
> submitted the ESRO protocol for publication as an Informational RFC.
> (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)
> 
> Shortly after that (on 1/15/97) I incorporated IANA's port assignment
> for the ESRO protocol and resubmitted it to the RFC-Editor.
> (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)
> 
> On January 23rd, the RFC editor acknowledged receipt and placed
> it in the publication queue and forwarded it to the IETF for their review.
> (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)
> 
> The ESRO protocol was put in the internet drafts directory on January
> 29th. (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)
> 
> On March 31st I checked on the current status of this RFC and
> expressed our desire to see it published
> soon. (<[email-masked]>)
> 
> On April 3th we were told that The IESG had requested that the ESRO
> document not be published at this time and that they would be in
> contact with us after their meeting that coming week in Memphis.
> (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>) 
> 
> I immediately replied requesting an explanation of this delay and the
> name of the relevant IESG contact person.  I again offered to discuss
> and respond to  questions/comments regarding the ESRO protocol.
> (Message-Id: <[email-masked]>)
> 
> The above mentioned 7 messages are attached to the end of this
> message.
> 
> Since April 3rd, we have not heard back from the RFC-Editor or the
> IESG regarding this Informational RFC.
> 
> The Informational designation is intended to provide for timely
> publication. That is one of the reasons why we submitted ESRO with
> Informational designation.
> 
> Considering that there has been adequate time (nearly 6 months) for
> the RFC Editor, the IESG, the IETF and the technical Internet
> community at large to review and comment on this document and that
> there has been no comments, again I request that the document be
> promptly published as an Informational RFC.
> 
> It is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the RFC Editor
> to over see publication of Informational RFC according to the process
> described in BCP-9/RFC-2026 in a timely manner. It is unreasonable and
> unprofessional for IESG (or anybody else) to delay publication of an
> Informational RFC without providing any reason or explanation. I don't
> understand the reason for the RFC Editor and the IESG's failure of
> following the process defined for publication of Informational RFCs in
> the case of this document.
> 
> We have done a significant amount of work on the specification and
> implementation of this useful protocol. We want to make it easy for
> others who wish to implement this protocol to access this document.
> Publication of this document as an Informational RFC accomplishes
> that. 
> 
> To the best of our knowledge there is nothing in the document that
> proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
> established IETF effort. 
> 
> 
> In short, this document has been in the queue for publication long
> enough. There has been ample time for through reviews. Since there has
> been no comments, I insist that RFC Editor publish it as an
> Informational RFC without any further delay.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> 	Mohsen Banan
>         Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-206-644-8026
>         17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-206-562-9591
>         Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]
>             U.S.A. 				URL: http://www.neda.com/
> 
> 
> ------- start of digest (7 messages) (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
> ....
> ------- end -------
> 
> 
------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (RFC Editor)
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational RFC (ESRO Protocol)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:39:59 -0700, [email-masked] (RFC Editor) said:

  RFC-Editor> Steve:

  RFC-Editor> Can you please look into this situation?

  RFC-Editor> Thanks,

  RFC-Editor> Mary Kennedy
  RFC-Editor> Request for Comments Documents
  RFC-Editor> -------------------------------------

Something is terribly wrong here.

This is the 4th time that we are requesting to find out the reason(s)
for the delay in publication of ESRO protocol (submitted more than 6
months ago) as an Informational RFC. 

The RFC Editor/IESG has been delaying the publication of this
RFC-to-be without providing any reason or explanation. Our repeated
requests for an explanation keep being ignored. 

Such seeming dictatorial attitude and arrogance has no place in the
open RFC publication process.

It is the responsibility of the RFC Editor to facilitate wide
distribution of relevant technical information. Delaying publication
of an Informational (the simplest and fastest category) RFC for
more than half a year without any reason is not serving the Internet
technical community. The RFC publication process does not belong to a
select few. The Informational classification in specific is intended
to facilitate distribution of technical work coming from outside of the
IETF/IESG context.

Last week Mary Kennedy forwarded my message to Steve Coya (to which
we have not received a reply) referring to it as "this situation".
Well, this situation has two dimensions.

  1) Publication of ESRO document.

  2) RFC Editor's failure to follow the publication process.

I care greatly about both.

On the first point, there should be no further delays in publication
of the ESRO document. Considering that the ESRO protocol was forwarded
to IETF on January 23rd, and that there been ample opportunity for its
review in the Memphis meeting and afterwards, any further delay (e.g.,
waiting for the Munich IETF) is unreasonable. Our goal in submission
of this document for publication as an Informational RFC was to use
a rapid and widely accessible publication  mechanism, not for IETF/IESG
rubber-stamping.

On the second point, Section 4.2.3 of RFC-2026 (BCP-9) refers to a two
weeks wait period and IESG's review within a reasonable period of
time. Is 6 months considered reasonable period of time?

We are in the process of doing significant additional work  for
wireless Internet users based on the ESRO protocol. We hope to make
all of that work openly available as well.  However, the unexplained
delay that we have experienced in the case of this document have been
quite discouraging.  We have been counting on the adherence to the RFC
publication process which appears to have failed in the case of this
document. This is having a significant adverse impact on our progress.

If the RFC Editor does not intend to publish our document in the next
few days, I wish to escalate this matter.  Please let us know (i) if
there is an escalation process for this situation and, if so, (ii)
what it is.  

In any case, I expect a prompt response from the RFC-Editor to the
following questions.

- - What process is the RFC Editor following for the publication of
  Informational RFCs?

- - What do "reasonable period of time" and "timely" mean to the 
  RFC Editor and the IESG.

- - What is the RFC Editor expected to do when the IESG does not
  review the document in a reasonable period of time?

- - Who do the RFC Editor and the IESG find themselves accountable to?

Regards,

- --
	Mohsen Banan
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-425-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-425-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: [email-masked]
            U.S.A. 				URL: http://www.neda.com/

------------------------------
From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
To: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational RFC (ESRO Protocol)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:25:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen,

I apologize for the situation that no one from the IESG has conacted you.
I can apprecaite your frustration, but you are aiming at the wrong folks.
The RFC Editors are NOT delaying publication of your submission. The IESG
requested that the document not be published, and some one was supposed to
contact you. 

You DO have a valid complaint, but not with the RFC Editors.

I will forward your message on to the apporpriate individuals, requesting
that they contact you immediately. 

Steve

------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen,
	This document seems to have slipped through the cracks when 
we (the IESG) changed transport ADs.  I'm trying to find out what the
old transport co-AD had in mind when she asked to put the doc on 
hold - from the notes it looks like she felt that it might be worth while
to issue an IETF last call on it and advance it as a proposed standard
(if you are interested in doing that) 

	I will get back to you as soon as I know more and I'm sorry 
for the delay.

Scott

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 97 15:16:16 PDT

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:35:34 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> Mohsen,
  Scott> 	This document seems to have slipped through the cracks when 
  Scott> we (the IESG) changed transport ADs.  I'm trying to find out what the
  Scott> old transport co-AD had in mind when she asked to put the doc on 
  Scott> hold - from the notes it looks like she felt that it might be worth while
  Scott> to issue an IETF last call on it and advance it as a proposed standard
  Scott> (if you are interested in doing that) 

Our main concern is that it be published promptly.

  Scott> 	I will get back to you as soon as I know more and I'm sorry 
  Scott> for the delay.

Thank you -- after having waited for publication of this document for
more than 6 months, I am sure you understand our sense of urgency.

...Mohsen.

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
    [email-masked],
	RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 97 11:33:26 PDT

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:35:34 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> Mohsen,
  Scott> 	This document seems to have slipped through the cracks when 
  Scott> we (the IESG) changed transport ADs.  I'm trying to find out what the
  Scott> old transport co-AD had in mind when she asked to put the doc on 
  Scott> hold - from the notes it looks like she felt that it might be worth while
  Scott> to issue an IETF last call on it and advance it as a proposed standard
  Scott> (if you are interested in doing that) 

  Scott> 	I will get back to you as soon as I know more and I'm sorry 
  Scott> for the delay.

Scott,

How soon do you think that is going to be?

Have you found out why the ESRO document is not being published?

Please let me know one way or the other right away.

Because of the pattern of having been told to wait and then being
ignored for weeks and months, it is tough for me to accept any further
unexplained delays.

I believe that you have already seen my email explaining how
irresponsibly and negligently the IESG and the RFC Editor have treated
the publication of this document. I can email you a copy if you have
not seen that.

Regards,

...Mohsen
------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:08:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen,
        As I told you - it seems like the old Transport AD had something
in mind about this document - I have sent here a message but have not yet
heard from her - I will be seeing here in Munich at the IETF meeting if
she does not reply before then.  I will then find out what she had in
mind.  As soon as I do I will let you know.

> Because of the pattern of having been told to wait and then being
> ignored for weeks and months, it is tough for me to accept any further
> unexplained delays.

sorry - I thought I was clear in my note to you

> I believe that you have already seen my email explaining how
> irresponsibly and negligently the IESG and the RFC Editor have treated
> the publication of this document. I can email you a copy if you have
> not seen that.

the RFC editor was following the direction of the IESG as rfc 2026
tells it to do - so no abuse should be directed to them.  As I said
things slipped through the cracks and I am sorry that happened.

Scott
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Resent-From: Pean Lim <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: [email-masked]
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Now: Improving the Informational RFCs Publication Process both in Theory and in Practice -- Was: Re:Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:08:21 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  >>> I believe that you have already seen my email explaining how
  >>> irresponsibly and negligently the IESG and the RFC Editor have treated
  >>> the publication of this document. I can email you a copy if you have
  >>> not seen that.

  Scott> the RFC editor was following the direction of the IESG as rfc 2026
  Scott> tells it to do - so no abuse should be directed to them.

I intended no abuse towards the RFC Editor. No abuse was directed to
them. What "abuse" are you talking about?

I hold a high degree of admiration and respect for those who have put
in place and practice the open and fair RFC publication process.

In general based on what I have seen and know, the RFC Editors are
doing a great job of publishing information for the Internet technical
community. Our thanks and keep up the good work. Kudos!

However, in the specific case of our document, a lot has gone wrong
and based on my reading of RFC 2026 part of the responsibility for
what has gone wrong is the RFC Editor's. Later in this message, I will
explicitly say what "irresponsibly and negligently" referred to.

  Scott> As I said  things slipped through the cracks and
  Scott> I am sorry that happened.

Apology accepted, of course.

Let's turn all of this into something positive by focusing on the
following explicit objectives.

 1- Making sure our document gets published without any further delay.

 2- Finding out what exactly went wrong in the case of this document.

 3- Finding out how we can improve the process and procedures so a
    problem like this will not happen again.

On the first point, I am glad that Scott has accepted the
responsibility for overseeing the publication of ESRO without any
further delay and that we are now back on track. I have made clear our
sense of urgency in seeing this document published as an RFC.

Scott, if you don't agree with any of the above paragraph, please let
me know right away.

On the second point, I think there is a lot more to this than "things
slipped through the cracks". As a user of the RFC publication service
I can provide you some feed-back which I had hoped you would find
useful.

On Jan 15, after we submitted our request for publication to the RFC
Editor I expected that the RFC Editor will take on the responsibility
of overseeing its progress towards publication in a timely manner.

My email of April 3 1997 appears to have been totally ignored by the
RFC Editor and the IESG.

In that message I asked:

 Mohsen> Can you please let us know generally what the reason for the delay is?

 Mohsen> Can you tell us who the IESG contact person is for this Informational
 Mohsen> RFC?

 Mohsen> Based on my understanding of the process of Informational RFC
 Mohsen> publication (RFC-2026 Sections 4.2.2 & 4.2.3), IESG's review relates
 Mohsen> to conflicts of the domain of the document with work that is being
 Mohsen> done or is expected to be done, within the IETF community. Is there a
 Mohsen> conflict?

At that time our only contact point was the RFC Editor.
The Editor neglected to reply to that message.
Those questions remain unanswered even today.

Had the RFC Editor responded to that message in April, we would have
save a lot of time. 

The above instance alone justifies my fair use of the word
"negligently". There is no abuse there.

My previous messages clearly shows how on several occasions the IESG
neglected to respond to our inquiries.

In my opinion the heart of the problem in this case is that the
RFC-Editor seems to have been reduced to a puppet. Rather than
managing the RFC publication process the RFC-Editor seems to be
functioning as an inefficient messenger for the IESG. This is clearly
in conflict with with the spirit of RFC-2026 Sections 4.2.2 & 4.2.3.

On the third point, there are a number of ways that I can help out in
addressing the above mentioned problems. I'll be happy to work with
Scott on the next revision of RFC-2026 to make the text of 4.2.{2,3}
more tight and clear. I'll also be happy to make the case that in
practice the RFC-Editor needs to have a stronger and more independent
role.

We are all on the same side. 
Let's work together.

...Mohsen.

P.S.
  I have been CCing Jon Postel on most of this thread and
  would love to know what he thinks of all of this.

------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Now: Improving the Informational RFCs Publication Process both in Theory and in Practice -- Was: Re:Unexpected and Unreasonable delays in processing of Informational
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

I'm sending this just to you

I told you that the problem was in the the ball getting dropped by the IESG
the RFC editor must follow what the IESG tells it to do and the IESG told
the rfc editor not to publish your document until the transport ad talked 
to you.  SO the rfc editor was doing exactly what it should have done

If you do not understand that the tone of your notes is abusive I think it 
is time for you to talk to a friend - the iesg fucked up and I'm trying
to fix the issue - you do not seem to want to listen - if I am wrong in
my analysis tell me

Scott
------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: ESRO ID
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

I have exchanged mail with the ex transport co-AD about this ID.  She feels
that this ID represents a significant technical contribution and feels that
it should be advanced on the IETF standards track.

The normal way to do that with a non-working group document is to issue
a 4 week last-call to the general IETF community announcing the intention
of the IESG to evaluate the ID as a Proposed Standard and asking for 
comments.  After the end of that last-call period the IESG would
evaluate the responses and proceed.

If this is valuable technology then it would be a shame to miss
the chance to get it on the standards track by a quick publication as 
an informational RFC (yes we could publish it as an info then do the
last call but that would be unusual and potentially confusing later
on when the RFC is referred to)

So - I'd like the authors of the ID to let me know how you would like
to proceed.  I'm quite willing to be the IESG shepard for the ID if
you are interested in proceeding to a last call.

Scott

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:43:37 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> I have exchanged mail with the ex transport co-AD about this ID.  She feels
  Scott> that this ID represents a significant technical contribution and feels that
  Scott> it should be advanced on the IETF standards track.

Thanks for overseeing the progress of this towards publication.
 
  Scott> The normal way to do that with a non-working group document is to issue
  Scott> a 4 week last-call to the general IETF community announcing the intention
  Scott> of the IESG to evaluate the ID as a Proposed Standard and asking for 
  Scott> comments.  After the end of that last-call period the IESG would
  Scott> evaluate the responses and proceed.

  Scott> If this is valuable technology then it would be a shame to miss
  Scott> the chance to get it on the standards track by a quick publication as 
  Scott> an informational RFC (yes we could publish it as an info then do the
  Scott> last call but that would be unusual and potentially confusing later
  Scott> on when the RFC is referred to)

  Scott> So - I'd like the authors of the ID to let me know how you would like
  Scott> to proceed.  I'm quite willing to be the IESG shepard for the ID if
  Scott> you are interested in proceeding to a last call.

I have spoken with the other two authors (Mark Taylor and Jia-Bing
Cheng) and we have a consensus amongst us that at this time we should
go ahead with the immediate publication of ESRO ID as an Informational
RFC.

The urgency for publication in this case outweighs our interest in
getting this document on the standards track.

However, I am very interested in getting the next version of ESRO on
the standards track.  In addition, we also have been working on
another protocol that uses ESRO which I believe represents enough of a
technical contribution to merit being put on the standards track as
well. I am hoping to have them ready for submission as RFCs-to-be by
the end of next month.

Again, thank you for all your help with this.

...Mohsen.

------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

- --
The urgency for publication in this case outweighs our interest in
getting this document on the standards track.
- --

for my information, what is causing this feeling of urgency?

Scott
------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:46:35 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Mohsen> --
  Mohsen> The urgency for publication in this case outweighs our interest in
  Mohsen> getting this document on the standards track.
  Mohsen> --

  Scott> for my information, what is causing this feeling of urgency?

For the past several months we have been telling our partners and
customers that the protocols our products use will soon be available
via the Informational RFC mechanism. Our credibility goes down as time
go by ...

Our business strategy hinges on the openness of our solution which in
turn hinges on the availability of ESRO protocol specification as an
RFC. The absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing efforts.

Other closed efficient transports for wireless applications exist.
The value of an open alternative declines as time goes by ...

...Mohsen.
------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID 
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:51:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen,
	Now that the IETF meeting in Munich is over I have recomended
to the IESG that your document be published as an Informational RFC. (there
was no sense in doing so before the IETF meeting since nothing was 
going to happen with everyone at the meeting)

	I do hope that you will consider submitting the revised version
you wrote about for consideration as a standards track RFC when it is 
ready.

Scott
------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ESRO ID 
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 21:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:51:53 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> Mohsen,
  Scott> 	Now that the IETF meeting in Munich is over I have recomended
  Scott> to the IESG that your document be published as an Informational RFC. (there
  Scott> was no sense in doing so before the IETF meeting since nothing was 
  Scott> going to happen with everyone at the meeting)

Great.

Thank you.

  Scott> 	I do hope that you will consider submitting the revised version
  Scott> you wrote about for consideration as a standards track RFC when it is 
  Scott> ready.

I will.   Promised.

...Mohsen.

------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

a comment from one of the IESG members about your draft

Scott

- --

>From [email-masked] Mon Aug 18 08:05:50 1997
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
From: [email-masked]
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-esro-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:48:03 EDT." <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:47:04 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]

The broken part of the protocol is this line:

>4.6.3  Use of lower layers
>
>ESRO protocol uses UDP port number 259.

The protocol is an obvious alternate to "heavier" RPC protocols,
but has only 8 bits of SAP to differentiate between different users.
The "obviously right" thing to my mind is to say that the assignment
of an UDP port is part of the application protocol.

The document is also self-conflicting; see this paragraph:

> 2.4.2  Performer-address

> This parameter is the address of the ESROS Performer User which 
> consists of ESRO Service Access Point (SAP) Selector, Transport 
> Service Access Point (TSAP) Selector (e.g., port number), and Network 
> Service Access Point (NSAP) address (e.g., IP address).  This 
> parameter has to be supplied by the invoker of the service.

> ESROS Invoker User provides the Performer-address parameter for the 
> ESROS-INVOKE.request primitive. 

which seems to call the port part of the address.

I have no objection to publication, but if you talk to them again,
it might not hurt to clarify this part.

                          Harald

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Resent-From: Pean Lim <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: [email-masked]
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        "Harald T. Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Clarifications on ESRO SAP Addressing
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:17:17 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> a comment from one of the IESG members about your draft

  Scott> Scott

Harald's observations are correct.

That part of the spec is not clear.

I will fix this problem in the next rev of the spec. 

My responses to  Harald's email follow:

  >> From [email-masked] Mon Aug 18 08:05:50 1997
  Harald> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
  Harald> From: [email-masked]
  Harald> To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
  Harald> cc: [email-masked]
  Harald> Subject: Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-esro-00.txt
  Harald> In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:48:03 EDT." <[email-masked]>
  Harald> Mime-Version: 1.0
  Harald> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  Harald> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:47:04 +0200
  Harald> Sender: [email-masked]

  Harald> The broken part of the protocol is this line:

  Harald> 4.6.3  Use of lower layers
  Harald> 
  Harald> ESRO protocol uses UDP port number 259.

Agreed.

Section 4.6.3 needs to be expanded to explain that the ESRO SAP
Selector's range is only 16 (4 bits). That the assignment of a UDP
port is part of the application layer. That port 259 (esro-gen) has
been assigned for general usage of esro.

  Harald> The protocol is an obvious alternate to "heavier" RPC protocols,

Glad you feel that way.

  Harald> but has only 8 bits of SAP to differentiate between different users.

It is not 8 bits for the ESRO SAP Selector.
It is only 4 bits (a total of 16).

The design decision to accept a limited ESRO SAP Selector space for
efficiency and to rely on UDP ports for wider use was deliberate.

  Harald> The "obviously right" thing to my mind is to say that the assignment
  Harald> of an UDP port is part of the application protocol.

Agreed.

  Harald> The document is also self-conflicting; see this paragraph:

The conflict is because section 4.6.3 needs to be expanded.

  Harald> 2.4.2  Performer-address

  Harald> This parameter is the address of the ESROS Performer User which 
  Harald> consists of ESRO Service Access Point (SAP) Selector, Transport 
  Harald> Service Access Point (TSAP) Selector (e.g., port number), and Network 
  Harald> Service Access Point (NSAP) address (e.g., IP address).  This 
  Harald> parameter has to be supplied by the invoker of the service.

  Harald> ESROS Invoker User provides the Performer-address parameter for the 
  Harald> ESROS-INVOKE.request primitive. 

  Harald> which seems to call the port part of the address.

Section 2.4.2 is correct. Section 4.6.3 needs clarification.

  Harald> I have no objection to publication, but if you talk to them again,
  Harald> it might not hurt to clarify this part.

Thanks for your comments.

...Mohsen

------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
CC: Pean Lim-Neda <[email-masked]>, Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>,
        "Mark S. Taylor" <[email-masked]>,
        Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>
Subject: ESRO ID
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Scott,

Just wanted to make sure that subsequent to our last email exchanges
you are not waiting on anything further from us for the publication of
the ESRO protocol as an Informational RFC.

I understand that you have asked the RFC Editor to publish the ESRO
protocol as an Informational RFC and that it will be published soon.

Please keep me posted on your communications with the RFC Editor 
related to this RFC.

Regards,
 
...Mohsen.

------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:29:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

The IESG has to make teh recommendation to the RFC Editor not just
one AD.  As soon as we got back form Munich I recommended to the IESG
that the ID be published as an Info RFC

The publication was approved by the IESG today ( we had to wait until
the iesg telechonference after the Munich meeting)

Scott
------------------------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>, RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
CC: Mohsen Banan-neda <[email-masked]>, Pean Lim-Neda <[email-masked]>,
        Jia-Bing Cheng <[email-masked]>,
        "Mark S. Taylor" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:29:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> said:

  Scott> The IESG has to make teh recommendation to the RFC Editor not just
  Scott> one AD.  As soon as we got back form Munich I recommended to the IESG
  Scott> that the ID be published as an Info RFC

  Scott> The publication was approved by the IESG today ( we had to wait until
  Scott> the iesg telechonference after the Munich meeting)

Based on that approval, I take it that IESG had sent its
recommendation to the RFC Editor that the ID be published
as an Info RFC.

I had hoped that by now it would have been published but
the ESRO Informational RFC has not been published yet.

Considering that our Information RFC publication request
was submitted nearly 8 months ago, we are very anxious to
see it published as soon as possible.

Can you please tell us what the status towards the
publication of this RFC is?

In fact it would be great if the RFC Editor gives us a
publication date in response to this message. 

Regards,

...Mohsen.

P.S.

Are there any other Informational RFCs in the RFC
publication queue that have been there longer than this
one?
------------------------------
From: [email-masked] (RFC Editor)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:35:29 -0700
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

Mohsen,

As a matter of fact your RFC was published yesterday.  We wait 24 hours
to send the announcement out.  I will be sending out the announcement
around 4pm PST.

Sincerely,

Alegre Ramos - USC/ISI
Request for Comments Documents

Voice: (310) 822-1511 x153
Fax:   (310) 823-6714
EMAIL: [email-masked]
------------------------------
From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RFC 2188 on ESRO
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 97 15:28:32 PDT
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Length: -919
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart

- --NextPart

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 2188:  

        Title:      AT&T/Neda's Efficient Short Remote Operations
                    (ESRO) Protocol Specification Version 1.2
	Author:     M. Banan, M. Taylor, and J. Cheng
        Date:       September 1997
        Mailbox:    [email-masked], [email-masked],
		    [email-masked]
        Pages:      57
        Characters: 118374
        Updates/Obsoletes: None

        URL:        ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2188.txt

This document specifies the service model, the notation and protocol
for Efficient Short Remote Operations (ESRO). The ESRO service is
similar to and is consistent with other Remote Procedure Call
services.  The emphasis of ESRO service definition and the ESRO
protocol is on efficiency.  ESRO is designed specifically with
wireless network (e.g., CDPD) usage in mind.

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to [email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: [email-masked]
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Alegre Ramos
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader 
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.

- --NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

- --OtherAccess
Content-Type:  Message/External-body;
        access-type="mail-server";
        server="[email-masked]"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>

SEND /rfc/rfc2188.txt

- --OtherAccess
Content-Type:   Message/External-body;
        name="rfc2188.txt";
        site="ds.internic.net";
        access-type="anon-ftp";
        directory="rfc"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>

- --OtherAccess--
- --NextPart--
------------------------------
From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ESRO ID
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

as I hope you have seen by now the RFC was published yesterday

Sorry for the delays involved in the publication

Scott

------- end -------

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:22:16 +0000

Hello Mohsen,
 
   It appears that your draft had a convoluted path to RFC publication.
   Given the all-volunteer IESG's workload and the desire to look over
   information RFC's prior to publication, this is not surprising.  
   I'm not certain that the IESG can scale to handle an arbitrary number
   of informational RFC submissions, nor whether it is desirable for it
   to do so.

   When you indicated that "absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing 
   efforts", the conflict becomes clear:  the publication of an ID as 
   an informational RFC shouldn't be on the critical path of any form of 
   marketing effort, since the assignment of an RFC number is simply 
   a publication detail.  Protocols documented in informational RFC's
   are not necessarily open, well-engineered, or even functional for
   that matter, and it could easily be misleading to suggest otherwise 
   to a prospective customer or business partner.

   The informational RFC publication process provides an important forum
   for specifications which do not generate enough interest within the 
   IETF to warrant WG formation.  The fact that the IESG makes an effort
   to review such documents may slow down the publication, but it also
   allows the IESG to highlight any issues and/or set context for the 
   technical community.
   
   Does this process provide strong protections for the would-be authors
   of informational RFCs?  Probably not.  Should the IESG prioritize its
   efforts to provide more efficient publication for such documents?  It's
   a good question; I'd personally prefer to see the IETF spend its time
   on the documents of chartered WG's where the IETF has already invested
   considerable time and effort.  If this means that informational docs
   go elsewhere to get published, so be it.  In our modern age, almost
   any organization can make its specifications openly available via web;
   there is no reason that the IETF needs to be involved in every effort.
    
   If you have a strong desire to establish a technical publication 
   service, feel free.  The RFC process is most distinctly an effort
   of the IAB and the IETF, and this process is principally focused
   on meeting the needs of protocols designed within this community.

/John

p.s.  Disclaimer: I believe I was on the IESG (as OPS/NM Co-AD) for the 
      most of your adventure.   I did not act on the draft in question
      other than to note that it was one of several in backlog state.

p.p.s.  These are my personal opinions and nothing more.  Feel free to
        use, discard, share or shred.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:22:16 +0000

Hello Mohsen,

   

/John

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:13:08 +0000 (GMT)

>    to a prospective customer or business partner.

The distinction between informational and standards-track RFCs is not
clearly widely understood or visible outside the active networking
community, and RFC 2150 is perceived to have as much value as RFC 768.
Hey, they're both RFCs, right?

IMO, some thought could be given to the convention for naming issued
documents. Historical tradition and legacy is one thing - Requests for
Comments aren't requests for comments (since we now have drafts), but
that's legacy for you. 

A clearer visible separation between informational and standards
documents would be extremely helpful in making the point to the masses
about the relative value of each. 

As a first suggestion, the convention:

{bcp|e|h|i|ds|ps|st|s|u}RFC nnnnn

is hardly elegant - dumping anything standardswise under s to simplify
may be better - but would be a minor adjustment that would raise help
raise awareness of the status/worth/position of each RFC at a point in
time, and it's not going to break text searching etc.

sRFC vs iRFC is where some clear separation in the namespace is sorely
needed; such a separation may also encourage people to expend the
effort to go standards-track, for the added value that sRFC brings.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:13:08 +0000 (GMT)

L.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 14:04:59 +0000

At 06:13 PM 11/06/1998 +0000, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>community ...

That sounds like a public relations problem, not a problem with the process.

Standards are numbered (55 at last count) and identified clearly in STD1
(resides at <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt>, current RFC2400)
 
Next time you hear a vendor presentation reference an RFC number as an
implied 
statement of openess & quality, challenge them on the actual protocol
status...  
there's nothing quite like being on stage without answers to make for a
valuable
learning experience. 

/John

p.s.  Suggestions regarding publication series and labelling should go to 
      the poisson WG mailing list, as it is recurring thread there.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 14:04:59 +0000

/John

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:16:07 -0500

> RFC. The absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing efforts.

Since when is an informational RFC number required to market
something?

Since when is an informational RFC a standard of any kind?

A web page or FTP site with a document on it is enough to have an open
protocol specification. If your marketing efforts required that an RFC
be issued, it was because your marketing had to involve abusing the
"color of IETF approval" that an RFC implies to the ill informed. In
almost every case, an informational RFC is supposed to be a benifit to
the community, not a marketing technique.

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:16:07 -0500

Perry

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:36:20 -0800

>by the likes of IESG. 

You are probably in a minority here. Many of us want to see more
accountability for Informational RFCs, even if it means that some of our
requests get denied or delayed until we fix them.

>service is fundamental to the success and growth of the

I fully disagree. There is nothing fair or equitable about the kind of
review that the RFC Editor or the IESG does. They are there to make
judgements and criticisms of what goes by their noses so that as few RFCs
as possible stink.

You made a business error when you relied on the publication of an
Informational RFC as part of a marketing strategy. That error would have
still been an error if your draft was published the day you requested. If
any part of your marketing says "hey, we've got an RFC on it", you would be
misleading your customers into thinking that you have done something
important when you have not.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:36:20 -0800

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:00:04 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:22:16 +0000, John Curran <[email-masked]> said:

  John> Hello Mohsen,
  John>    It appears that your draft had a convoluted path to RFC publication.
  John>    ...

  John>    The RFC process is most distinctly an effort
  John>    of the IAB and the IETF, and this process is principally focused
  John>    on meeting the needs of protocols designed within this community.

WRONG.

Only a hand full of Standard Junkies are of that opinion.

The RFC process is published and advertised in BCP-9, RFC 2026, 
"The Internet Standards Process -- Revsion 3".

Anything outside of that is an opinion. Anything that is inconsistent
with it is wrong.

There is a name for entities that say, publish and advertise something
and then go ahead and do something else. I use the word "hypocrites"
for that.

Part of the problem is that many of the people who are participating
in this discussion either have not read or just don't want to pay
attention to sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of RFC-2026.

I am including those two sections -- which is no more than a page and a
half long -- to the end of this message. I strongly recommend that
those who want to participate in this thread read those sections first.

Here is the problem.

If sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 say that the service is "such" and the
responsibility of RFC Editor and the IESG are "those", then those
should be followed.

RFC-2026 is kind of like a constitution.

If people don't like or agree with what it says, then they should try
to change it. But ignoring it or violating it should not be permitted.

  John>    If you have a strong desire to establish a technical publication 
  John>    service, feel free.

If Informational RFC Publication Service was to be advertised as
discontinued to those outside of IETF, then the Internet technical
community would find another way for wide publication of data
communication protocols. 

...Mohsen.

---

              The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3

...

RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996

4.2.2  Informational

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
   (see section 4.2.3).

   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
   community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor.

4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs

   Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents
   intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status
   should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.  The RFC Editor will
   publish any such documents as Internet-Drafts which have not already
   been so published.  In order to differentiate these Internet-Drafts
   they will be labeled or grouped in the I-D directory so they are
   easily recognizable.  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
   publication for comments before proceeding further.  The RFC Editor
   is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the editorial
   suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
   Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
   the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
   activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
   RFCs.

   To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
   designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
   Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
   will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
   Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
   may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
   IETF community.  The IESG shall review such a referred document
   within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
   published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
   contribution to the Internet Standards Process.

   If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
   IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
   to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
   something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
   established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
   Experimental or Informational RFC.  In these cases, however, the IESG
   may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
   immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
   make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.

   Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
   Working Groups go through IESG review.  The review is initiated using
   the process described in section 6.1.1.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:00:04 -0800 (PST)

John> Hello Mohsen,

WRONG.

Here is the problem.

...Mohsen.

---

...

4.2.2  Informational

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:00:29 -0500

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:36:20 -0800
   From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>

Indeed, I would think that trying to use an Informational RFC as part of
a marketing strategy is a particularly dispicable act, as it inherently
relies on the gullibility of the customer --- "it's an RFC, so it must
be an Internet Standard".  Admitting this in a long diatribe against the
IESG says absolutely nothing good about Neda Communications, Inc.

You'll get no sympathy from this quarter....

						- Ted

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 17:00:29 -0500

- Ted

---

From: Marc Horowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Nov 1998 18:04:29 -0500

(headers trimmed)

>> (resides at <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt>, current RFC2400)

Unfortunately, this is not clear to most of the people who might read
an RFC number in a company's marketing literature.

I think it would make the IETF's standards process stronger if
Informational RFC's could easily be identified as distinct from IETF
standards documents.  As it is, I'm concerned that irresponsible
marketing which implies that informational RFC's are endorsed by the
IETF makes us look bad, not them, when the protocols aren't up to our
requirements.

		Marc

---

From: Marc Horowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Nov 1998 18:04:29 -0500

(headers trimmed)

		Marc

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 15:13:16 -0800

> Only a hand full of Standard Junkies are of that opinion.

I disagree. I think you are in a minority opinion here.
I sympathize with your frustration over RFC publishing delays,
but many WGs have standards-track documents have been delayed
a long time, mostly due to peer-review resources. (Don't
leave a tip if you don't like the service -- or go to 
another restaurant ;-)

> "The Internet Standards Process -- Revsion 3".

The paragraphs you cite below undermine your argument, rather than 
support it. Every publishing organization has the right to set
criteria for works it will publish.  That's what gives a publication 
any credibility and ultimately, any end-user value.

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 15:13:16 -0800

Andy

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus André Färber)
Date: 06 Nov 1998 21:59:00 +0100

> effort to go standards-track, for the added value that sRFC brings.

Maybe it's better to introduce a new document series that does not hold  
full standards (i.e. STD), but Standard Track Documents.

For example, this series could be named STP (STandard, proposed).

Then it could be made clear, that RFCs that do not have either a STD or  
a STP number are not true "standards".

On the other hand, there is a RFC with the title "RFC are not  
standards". Isn't that enough?

-- 
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.muc.de/~cfaerber/> Fax: +49_8061_3361
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E  25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus André Färber)
Date: 06 Nov 1998 21:59:00 +0100

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 04:20:12 +0000

>Only a hand full of Standard Junkies are of that opinion.

Strange...  RFC2026 must have been written by one of those "Standard Junkies":

 ]   Each distinct version of an Internet standards-related specification
 ]   is published as part of the "Request for Comments" (RFC) document
 ]   series.  This archival series is the official publication channel for
 ]   Internet standards documents and other publications of the IESG, IAB,
 ]   and Internet community.  

Or perhaps you don't see the above words above as supporting my summary
("principally focused on meeting the needs of protocols designed within
this community")?   It seems to me that the Standard Junkies, RFC2026, 
and myself are very much in agreement.  

>Anything outside of that is an opinion. Anything that is inconsistent

Not true; the IESG routinely establishes working processes which are not
contained within this RFC, yet guide overall execution.  You might want 
to refer to the IESG meeting minutes for examples of such.  As for being
inconsistent w.r.t 2026, that is definitely a matter of perspective, 
particularly with respect to documents which do not follow the formal
WG process.

>and then go ahead and do something else. I use the word "hypocrites"

How nice...   thank you for the language lesson.   I'll refrain from
defining any terms for the moment.

While you're defining terms, could you define "openness" as used in
your email below?
   
   ] Our business strategy hinges on the openness of our solution which in
   ] turn hinges on the availability of ESRO protocol specification as an
   ] RFC.

There's a really easy way to make an truly open solution in the IETF; refer
to the working group process for details.   For some reason, this was not 
the path chosen.

I have to admit that extracting "openness" simply from the publication of 
a specification as an RFC is an amazing feat, and makes me wonder about 
the definition of "openness".  Could you have hinged your business strategy
on the "openness" which would have come from making the ESRO protocol spec
available via your own WWW site instead?   Would it matter if it were 
labelled as "Mohsen Functional Compendium #1" (MFC 1)??

>attention to sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of RFC-2026.

Hmm.  Your message was directed to me, and so I'll reassure you and 
note that I've most certainly read RFC-2026 several times.  It's
pretty much a requirement for administering the internet-draft state
machine that an area director must manage.

>those who want to participate in this thread read those sections first.

Done.  I'd recommend that folks who want to participate in this thread
gain a working knowledge of publication process, but I'm afraid I can't
provide a reference for you to educate yourself on this topic.

>RFC-2026 is kind of like a constitution.

No, but continue anyway.

>to change it. But ignoring it or violating it should not be permitted.

I'm not certain I see any violation...   the RFC Editor has discretion
in publication, including matters of technical merit.  You should know
that the RFC Editor routinely asks the IESG for input on such matters
(which, while not specifically called for, is in no way incompatible 
with the process as documented in 2026).  

Further, your own email indicates that you declined an offer to have
the work brought into the standards process, and hence (by the very
process you reference), the IESG clearly had the option to add a 
disclaimer as desired.

>community would find another way for wide publication of data

The RFC publication seems quite available to all; you apparently dislike
the service that you received.  I even understand this w.r.t the turnaround
time for publication.  With respect to the process followed, I do not see
anything which is contrary to 2026 and can only suggest that if you don't
like the IETF's technical publication process for informational documents,
that you should feel free to establish your own publication series where
you can both make and interpet the process to suit your "openness" needs.

/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 04:20:12 +0000

No, but continue anyway.

/John

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:01:34 -0500 (EST)

> standards". Isn't that enough?

The actual title is "Not All RFCs are Standards." I wrote it with Steve
Crocker and Jon Postel.

The debate of whether or not we should publish specification of "non
standard" protocols in the RFC series as been going on for several years.
RFC 1796 was published in 1995, as a contribution to the 1995
instantiation of that debate.

The basic IETF/Internet Society position is that standards are good, and
that we don't want to encourage a proliferation of non standard protocols.
 Experimentation is fine, but you don't really need an RFC for that -- a
draft is fine. So, there is a very strong argument for only publishing
standard-track specifications.

The main argument for publishing non standards is that the Internet is a
better place if non stand.ards are openly documented (this is the argument
Jon used to convince me.)Open publication of the specification will allow
for the development of some interworking implementation, albeit with a
higher degree of risk than with real standards, due to the absence of
change control. But, in fact, this argument only applies to protocols that
have been developed outside the standard process and have already gained a
significant market share. We may want to recognize the existence of an
elephant in the middle of the living room, but wecertainly don't want to
encourage a new one to come in.

-- 
Christian Huitema

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:01:34 -0500 (EST)

-- 
Christian Huitema

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:22:08 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:01:34 -0500 (EST), Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> said:

  >> standards". Isn't that enough?

  Christian> The actual title is "Not All RFCs are Standards." I wrote it with Steve
  Christian> Crocker and Jon Postel.

  Christian> The debate of whether or not we should publish specification of "non
  Christian> standard" protocols in the RFC series as been going on for several years.
  Christian> RFC 1796 was published in 1995, as a contribution to the 1995
  Christian> instantiation of that debate.

The current version, (Revision 3) of BCP-9 is dated October 1996.

  Christian> The basic IETF/Internet Society position is that standards are good, and
  Christian> that we don't want to encourage a proliferation of non standard protocols.
  Christian>  Experimentation is fine, but you don't really need an RFC for that -- a
  Christian> draft is fine. So, there is a very strong argument for only publishing
  Christian> standard-track specifications.

But BCP-9 is still clearly not saying anything like that.

  Christian> The main argument for publishing non standards is that the Internet is a
  Christian> better place if non stand.ards are openly documented (this is the argument
  Christian> Jon used to convince me.)Open publication of the specification will allow
  Christian> for the development of some interworking implementation, albeit with a
  Christian> higher degree of risk than with real standards, due to the absence of
  Christian> change control. But, in fact, this argument only applies to protocols that
  Christian> have been developed outside the standard process and have already gained a
  Christian> significant market share. We may want to recognize the existence of an
  Christian> elephant in the middle of the living room, but wecertainly don't want to
  Christian> encourage a new one to come in.

BCP-9 does not say that.

If the policy that you expressed above is to be in fact adopted
it needs to be widely understood and published. 

You can't say/publish/advertise one thing (BCP-9) and then go ahead
and implement something else. There is a word for that ...

...Mohsen.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:22:08 -0800 (PST)

BCP-9 does not say that.

...Mohsen.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:50:00 +0000

This is to advise you that I have received your note, and expect to reply
for the IESG. The basis of that reply will be RFC 2026.

Fred Baker
IETF Chair

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:50:00 +0000

Fred Baker
IETF Chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:22:49 +0000

Further, although the IAB is already aware of this issue, and is
collecting information, we certainly won't respond formally until 
after the IETF Chair has responded, and then only if the apellant
subsequently appeals to the IAB. 
   
   Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:22:49 +0000

Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair