Subject: Re: the old "separate document series" argument

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:13:34 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>

> > the real problem we are seeing is that there is a persistent belief
> > that the RFC series is open to all comers regardless of the quality
> > of their submissions or their applicability to the Internet.  we need
> > to put a stake in this one and state very clearly and publically
> > that this is not the case.
>
> in the 30 years that the RFC series has run it has always been the case
> that an independent person could get an RFC published if the RFC Editor
> frlt it was a contribution to the Internet community - I think we
> have to think very hard if we want to change this.

You say that as if it contradicts the preceding words.  
On the contrary, historically the RFC editor exercised a lot of filtering.

To put it another way, do you read the I-D announcements?  Did you see
the one that came through today that made me wonder if today is April 1?

It's hard to believe that any IETF regular who thinks there is no problem
is paying much attention to the stream of RFC's and I-D's outside their
personal interests.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:32:06 -0400

> the one that came through today that made me wonder if today is April 1?

<takes a look> OK, yeah, I see what you mean.  (The abstract reads like
psychobabble; the first paragraph of the Draft itself apologizes for using
small fonts.)

> is paying much attention to the stream of RFC's and I-D's outside their

Why exactly do you think that this draft (bizarre as it is) indicates a
problem? (Your previous appeal to Gresham's Law was not convincing; ideas are
not coins.)

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:32:06 -0400