Subject: Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:54:23 -0800

Mohsen,

I would like to suggest a procedural confusion in your messages.

I believe that BCPs simply document current practice.  They are not
standards, and they are not constitutional documents.  BCP-9 is a
best-effort attempt to document procedures of the IETF.  Like the
Internet itself, it provides no guarantees.  If the BCP does not agree
with practice, it is likely that the BCP, not the practice, is deficient.

RFCs were rooted in the history of the US government-funded research
effort that led to the ARPAnet and the Internet.  As a result of that
history, and as a result of one particular person, Jon Postel, RFCs
seem to have an existence independent of the IETF.  This is, however,
an illusion; the RFC function is paid for by the ISOC/IETF, and is
managed in an attempt to maximize the good of the Internet.

IETF is not a court of law nor a governmental body.  It is a group of
technical experts trying their damndest to make the Internet work well
for all.

Bob Braden

(This, obviously, is my personal opinion as one long-time member of
the Internet community.)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:54:23 -0800

Mohsen,

Bob Braden