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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:19:28 -0600 (MDT)

> > 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.
>
> 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.)

Yes, Gresham's law is nominally about things that are fungible.  Ideas
are not fungible, and contrary to what Dilbert's manager wishes, neither
are the people who have them, but they are driven away by dross.

If you have a good idea and want to take it public, which would you choose
and why:
   - ITU, ANSI, or IEEE
  - netnews
  - IETF 
  - private WWW pages.

Now answer the same question 5, 10, and 15 years ago, (of course withough
WWW pages).

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Charles Perkins wrote:

] I have an intermediate solution, that is not the whole solution.
] 
] We should _require_ that RFCs be cited as Informational RFCs,
] Proposed Standard RFCs, Experimental RFCs, Draft Standard RFCs,
] or Standard RFCs (as appropriate).

Exactly how would requirement be implmented?   How would you punish or
even educate the vast majority who would not merely fail to comply, but
never even hear about the requirement.  For example, have you noticed that
the experts think that RFC 1990 defines a protocol named "MLPPP", most
people think it is named "MPPP," and practically no one knows the name
given in the title of the RFC?

} From: [email-masked]

} Actually, I have questioned Joyce Reynolds on this point.  On her
} evidence, and based on what I have heard the primordial RFC Editor Jon
} Postel himself say, I believe that he did NOT do a lot of filtering.
} That is, while he applied a lot of understanding and intelligence to
} the decision on every RFC, it was a point of principle for him to err
} on the side of publication of "crazy ideas" -- by which he meant ideas
} that might be out of the mainstream of current thought but were
} responsible and not ignorant.  He took an essentially academic
} viewpoint on RFC publication (since he WAS an academic). ...

Do you look at the I-D announcements?  What do you think all of this
morning's crop?

I have yet another idea to fix this problem that only I see.  Let's have
more I-D's and RFC's like this morning's that finds "5.46 * 10^9" addresses
in a 32-bit value.  Two or three of those every day would soon end the
appetite of even the worst marketoons for an I-D or RFC.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:04:59 +0200 (MET DST)

>From [email-masked]  Wed Aug 25 23:55:30 1999
>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:19:28 -0600 (MDT)
>From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> ...

>given in the title of the RFC?

This is easy, but requires hard work from everyone.

Say someone references an Informational/Experimental RFC in a way that
indcates STD status. Call them. Email, FAX, phone, s-mail, postcard.
Tell them you did notice what they're trying to do, that its' wrong,
bad and stupid and tell them you'll inform as many others as you can
to avoid them and their products.

If it's Marketing they *are* sensitive to opinions.

This has worked before, in other areas.

	Gunnar Lindberg

---

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:04:59 +0200 (MET DST)

Gunnar Lindberg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:43:38 -0400

> to avoid them and their products.

I'm constantly writing notes to the editors of trade rags, telling them,
for instance that:

- the phrase "company XXX has subimtted a document to IETF" is
  essentially meaningless, and that vendor-subimtted 
  internet-drafts often (usually!) have zero noticable effect
  on standards development.
  
- no, the XXXX proposal is *not* being "fast-tracked" through IETF

- no, the YYYY proposal will *not* replace URLs as we know them

- no, company XXXX is *not* a participant in working group YYYY.
  companies don't participate in IETF; individuals do.
  there may or may not be employees of company XXXX participating
  in working group YYYY.  we don't always even know what company
  a participant works for - not everyone uses their employers' email
  addresses for IETF work. and we don't assume that participants
  are speaking for their companies; quite the contrary, we encourage
  participants to speak their own minds, and (thankfully) most of them do. 

- no, XXXX is not (yet) an ietf working group.  it may never be an
  ietf working group. even if it becomes an IETF working
  group, you shouldn't assume that any of (a) so-and-so will 
  be the chair (b) their charter will include XXXX, or 
  (c) they will bless YYYY's proposal for solving problem ZZZZ.

and these are just examples from the past 2-3 weeks.

I've been doing this for the past 3+ years.  So far I can't tell
that it's had any effect at all.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:43:38 -0400

Keith

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:21:39 -0700

>I'm constantly writing notes to the editors of trade rags, telling them,

<frequently committed errors included here>

>that it's had any effect at all.

Not only have attempts to correct this problem had no effect,
but the practices you describe have now become so common that
the trade press has come to accept them as legitimate. 

One approach to this would be to invite members of the trade
press to an educational session held on the weekend prior 
to the IETF Washington, D.C. meeting. The purpose of the session
would be to educate journalists on how to intelligently 
evaluate claims of standards status, and do fact checking
for their articles. Just as journalists reporting on
government have developed a posture of scepticism in reporting
on the pronouncements of our public officials, it seems
possible that such a session might spur a re-evaluation 
of the "print the press release without modifications" approach. 

I'd also note that in the commercial world, abuses 
like this are often handled through establishment 
of trade or service marks. It is one thing to assert 
that "Bigco has submitted the Frobnitz protocol
to the IETF." It is another to assert that "the Frobnitz
protocol has earned IETF Proposed Standard (SM) status." 

Of course as you know, maintaining trade or service mark
status requires vigorous enforcement action. So going down
this road would require staffing to send out "cease and
desist" orders, track compliance and when necessary, take
legal action. All of this might cause more controversy
and ill will than its worth.

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:21:39 -0700

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:04:53 -0400

> Just as journalists reporting on
> on the pronouncements of our public officials, 

this hasn't been my experience.  in most cases they parrot whatever 
the White House (for example) says in their press releases. 

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:04:53 -0400

Keith

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:06:30 -0700

>I'm constantly writing notes to the editors of trade rags, telling them,

I applaud everyone who does this.  I have sent notes like this well 
(though not with your frequency, I'm sure).  But this is a race you 
can never win, Keith.  Not even if everyone in the IETF made writing 
explanatory notes a constant part of their day could we hope to keep 
up (much less do anything more useful).  There will always be far 
more people using, abusing, and misusing the words we write than 
there will be writers of them.  This debate is about finding a way to 
make abuse and misuse harder (and, consequently, use, easier).

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:06:30 -0700

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:48:24 -0400

Bernard Aboba wrote:

> of trade or service marks.
> [...]
> status requires vigorous enforcement action.

...which probably means it's too late, since there's been no enforcement so
far.

--
/=============================================================\
|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: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:48:24 -0400

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:03:54 -0700

At 10:21 AM -0700 8/26/99, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>for their articles.

This is the along the lines of the better education that's been 
suggested.  But let's return to the original idea:

Let's label the different kinds of documents more plainly for casual 
readers.  This makes the task of education easier.  It makes the 
likelihood of abuse less.  It reduces the time spent in debates over 
paper's like Dan Zigmond's (which I'm sure Glen Zorn appreciates, 
particularly <grin>).

Yes, we've been 'round the block on this before.  On Scott Bradner's 
recommendation I searched back through Poised's archive to 1995 to 
discover others saying virtually the same things as we're saying now. 
It seems to me that four years additional experience ought to tell us 
confusion over the meaning of an RFC label isn't growing any less.

best,
john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   We all learn here by the honorable path of horrible mistakes.
   -- Katherine Paterson, "The Master Puppeteer," 1975
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:03:54 -0700

best,
john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:30:22 -0400

> confusion over the meaning of an RFC label isn't growing any less.

no, but it's not necessarily getting any worse either.  

> It reduces the time spent in debates over 
> paper's like Dan Zigmond's

no it doesn't.   ANY publication by IETF of this document in its 
current form would be inappropriate.  The issue here is not one of
document labelling,  the issue is whether IETF will publish,
and effectively register (bypassing its established procedure), 
a specification for a tv: URL that is known to have severe deficiencies.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:30:22 -0400

Keith

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:08:41 -0700

>no, but it's not necessarily getting any worse either.

If it was getting worse, would you look more kindly on changing our practice?

>a specification for a tv: URL that is known to have severe deficiencies.

But Dan's paper doesn't claim to be a specification.  It says quite 
clearly it is a description of current practice.  I don't know Dan, 
but based on what I find in the document, there is no attempt to 
deceive anyone into thinking he was proposing his description as a 
standard specification.  What alarmed me is the response by people 
claiming to speak for their organization and apparently unfamiliar 
with IETF practice endorsing the paper as a specification for their 
industry.  The only destination for this paper beyond an I-D is as an 
Informational RFC.  Regardless of the immediate suitability of Dan's 
paper as an RFC, I find the consequences of it becoming *any* RFC 
distasteful (Dan, this is no reflection on what you've written) in 
light of other's misinterpretation.

This is not about Dan's paper, it's about the meaning of "RFC".

Consider the power of the label.

AltaVista found 1463 web pages mentioning RFC822 since the beginning 
of this year.  There were 4 references to STD11.  This is the *same* 
document!  (Ok, I didn't count the reference to dance studio STD11 at 
Danceworks.com...)  References to *any*  IETF BCP was listed on only 
311 pages.  Keith, you are absolutely right, an RFC label is a 
powerful instrument.  Granting it to a document must be carefully 
weighed.   I deeply respect the work you and all the members of the 
IESG do in judging the crushing weight of documents that cross your 
desk.

But work such as Dan's -- properly done -- or perhaps the 
hypothetical paper described by Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim, deserves a 
place in the pantheon of IETF documents.  They deserve respect as 
informational documents.  They must not be subject to the misuse, 
inadvertent or otherwise, promised by the behavior of those endorsing 
draft-zigmond-tv-url-02.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The man that can most truly be accounted brave is he who best
   knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible,
   and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
   -- Pericles, "Funeral Oration", 479 B.C.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:08:41 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:58:52 -0700

At 08:08 PM 8/26/99 , John  W. Noerenberg wrote:
>AltaVista found 1463 web pages mentioning RFC822 since the beginning of this

Hmm.  The query I just made found 13,486 for "rfc822" and 8485 for "rfc 822"...

For some others:

  "rfc 1123" =   1903 and "rfc1123" = 1078
  "rfc 821"  =   2879 and "rfc821" =  1077
  "rfc 823"  = 495340 and "rfc823" =    77
  "rfc 824"  = 528240 and "rfc824" =    33

And how many of you know what RFC 823 was about, without looking?  Bob 
Hinden is disqualified, since he wrote it.

>year.  There were 4 references to STD11.  This is the *same* 
>Danceworks.com...)  References to *any*  IETF BCP was listed on only 311 
>pages.  Keith, you are absolutely right, an RFC label is a powerful 
>instrument.  Granting it to a

But as the exercise above makes clear, the label of RFC is not sufficient 
to guarantee popularity.

So, yes, there are some people who abuse the process and some who make 
exaggerated claims, but I believe there is very little evidence of long 
term benefit to them or detriment to the IETF.

As to the press, well, some reporters are diligent and others (these days, 
most) are not.  In spite of years of history with hype-of-the-moment, many 
continue to play up the latest simplistic, unlikely claim.

We aren't going to fix that.  It sells papers.

>But work such as Dan's -- properly done -- or perhaps the hypothetical 
>paper described by Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim, deserves a place in the 
>pantheon of

Absent effort to publish fraud or slander, the most we should do is require 
addition of explanatory material from the IESG which helps clarify context, 
concerns, and the like.

d/
d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:58:52 -0700

For some others:

d/
d/

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:34:32 -0500

At 10:21 AM 8/26/1999 -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>to the IETF Washington, D.C. meeting.

##########

Well from todays headlines we have one more example of the lack of any 
attempt to understand the IETF process and documentation...however this 
came from the PR departments of HP and Microsoft.  Before we beat up too 
much on the trade press it might be useful to educate some corporate PR 
departments.

As many of you know IPP 1.0 is not a "IETF Standard" the documentation was 
published as Experimental pending IESG approval of IPP 1.0

************************ full story truncated 
**********************************

REDMOND,  Wash., Aug 27, 1999-- Microsoft
Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Hewlett-Packard Co. today announced they have
delivered on their commitment to support the Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP) in the Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 98 operating system Second Edition
as well as the Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional and Server operating
systems, increasing Internet printing functionality and providing
customers with the ability to send print documents to anyone across the
Internet.

Microsoft and HP have championed the development of IPP and have worked
closely with the Printer Working Group (PWG), a consortium of all major
companies involved in printing. IPP 1.0 has been approved as a standard
by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:34:32 -0500

##########

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:07:26 -0400

maybe we need a mailing-list/web page called "stupid press tricks"
where we post examples of Internet-related mis/dis-information 
foisted on the unsuspecting masses by the press.

(not as an IETF activity, of course)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:07:26 -0400

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT)

> foisted on the unsuspecting masses by the press.

while hard drive prices are indeed low, they're not *that* low.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT)

randy

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:24:03 -0700

>(not as an IETF activity, of course)

Consider it done.

The ietf-press-clues mailing list discusses ways that IETF members can help 
the press and PR folks be more accurate when they talk about the IETF and 
IETF work. The result of the list may be one or more Internet Drafts or web 
pages that give some of useful information in a form short enough that busy 
press an PR folks will read it.

Active IETFers, press, and PR folk are all invited to join the list.

To subscribe, send a message to [email-masked] with the 
single word:
      subscribe
in the body of the message. The list will accept subscriptions now, and 
I'll turn the list on for discussion in about a week.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:24:03 -0700

Consider it done.

--Paul Hoffman, Director