Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:58:26 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

> >Henceforth, the IESG should publish no
> >Internet Drafts except those that are products of IETF working groups or
> >the IAB, and implement that exit from the usenet-like publishing world by
> >requiring a go-ahead from a working group chair, area director, IESG
> >member, IAB member before publishing any draft.
>
> Even given the absurdity of the 4 so-called "in support" messages, I 
> find this position completely without merit and strongly disagree 
> with its implementation. I have my name on two RFCs that did not go 
> through a working group: RFC 1339, which was published as 
> experimental but went nowhere, and RFC 1896, which was published as 
> informational; widely deployed, and turned out to be quite useful. 
> ...

When I listed the area directors, IESG, and IAB, I meant that they should
individually be able to direct that a draft be published.  Don't you think
you could have found an IAB, AD, or ISEG sponsor?  If you could not have
found a sponsor in a WG chair or the IESG, AD's, or IAB, do you really
think your drafts should havae been published?

(From a quick skim of RFC 1339, and without intending any insult, I
don't think it should have been published, at least not before some
significant implementation experience.  It's not an entirely bad idea,
but not all good ideas should be published as RFC's, I don't know what
I think of RFC 1895.)

> The last call on each of these documents was extended, produced good 
> feedback, and eventually produced IMHO reasonable documents which 
> were of use to the community. I find it completely absurd to think 
> that these documents would have required WG sponsorship (neither had 
> anything to do with the work of any active WGs) in order to get 
> community review.
>
> We should continue to be vigilant in reviewing I-D's that don't come 
> out of WGs; that's why we have extended last calls and IESG reviews 
> before they become RFCs.

How do you suggest that "vigilance" be implemented?  The intent of my
proposal is to 
There have already been complaints from the advocates of the currently
controversial I-D that it has ben subject to too much vigilance.

> You, like the folks you are complaining about, have given no 
> justification whatsoever for your stated position. The particular I-D 
> in question is getting community review (as it should); I see nothing 
> in your proposal that would make this particular situation any 
> better, and plenty that would make the future worse.

If this were the first time this issue has been raised, the first attempt
by an industry group to ram through bad ideas that have been rejected by
the IETF (that's how I (mis?)read the historical discussion about the new
I-D), or even the only example of an I-D that should not have been
published in the last 6 months and will never have a second revision, you
would have a good point.  Instead, if you look at current I-D's, you'll
see that the IETF is trying very hard to prove Gresham's Law applies to
network standards as well as coinage.

(Gresham's Law says that bad coins drives good coins out fo the market.)

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]