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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:59:08 -0700 (MST)

> From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>

> >               Complaints Against The IESG
> >                    and The RFC-Editor
> >            About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)
> > 	[...]
>
> Interesting reading.
>
> Perhaps the IESG should make a brief presentation on the topic of
> Informational RFCs at the next IESG Open Plenary Session in Orlando.

Yes, and how about if the presentation concerns a schedule to stop
publishing informational RFC's that are not supported by a consensus of
a working group that the contents are related to the efforts of the group
and suitable for publication although not suitable to become an IETF
standard?

Or at least change the name, to something like "WBSN," Whacko Blue Sky
Nonsense?  Such a name would not affect the good contents of a document
or the attention they get from rational people, but it would stop the
transparent efforts to borrow the imprimatur of a standards organization.

By the way, why have those who are so very concerned about the Halloween
Memos not commented about the Microsoft PPP draft Informational RFC's,
especially the most recent in which Microsoft says that they plan to
(re)publish such informational RFCs on their own timetable and as their
needs dictate, without the let, leave, hindrance or comments of the IETF?
Could it be that there is a conflict between the desire to have absolute
everything happen within the IETF where committee participants can comment
and otherwise participate, and the desire to have the IETF exercise real
control on all standards?

When did the rules change on Informational RFC's to allow RFCs such as
those new Microsoft drafts?  Am I the only one who remembers the big hoohaw
about the documents chosen by the IETF "conveying changed control to the
IETF" for NFS before the Informational RFCs documenting NFS could be
published?  If you are concerned about Microsoft, how is it you are willing
to let Microsoft publish Informational RFCs without requiring that
Microsoft jump through the same hoops as you forced Sun?  Could it be that
Sun clearly wanted to work with the IETF and so could be bullied, but
Microsoft has just as clearly been willing to ignore the IETF and so could
not be bullied?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:01:49 -0500

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:59:08 -0700 (MST)
   From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>

Err... no, it's because Sun wanted the RFC's published as Proposed
Standards, not as Informational status.   Sun had no trouble getting
SunRPC published as an Informational RFC --- see RFC-1057, published in
1988.  It was trying to get ONCRPC published as a Proposed Standard that
required the change control --- quite rightly, in my opinion.

						- Ted

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:01:49 -0500

- Ted

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:31:11 +0100

>Microsoft has just as clearly been willing to ignore the IETF and so could

RFC 1790 concerns change control over XDR and RPC (1831 and 1832).
These are on the standards track.
The IETF was not at that time given change control over NFS, so that's
Informational (1813).

Some slight glimmerings of consistency here....the hoops that we
bent into rather unsightly forms at that time taught us a lot about
how not to do things; I hope we're doing better now.

                     Harald A

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:31:11 +0100

Harald A