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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:29:36 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>

> ...
> > This is attractive, I admit.  But I concur with Keith's remarks about 
> > the tacit approval publication confers.  Conversations with people 
> > who possess only a cursory understanding of IETF procedures 
> > demonstrate to me that assignment of an RFC number is often 
> > misconstrued as perfection of a standard.
>
> Presumably these same people possess "only a cursory understanding" of the
> English language, since they apparently cannot understand the following
> sentences (appearing verbatim in the first paragraph of _every_
> Informational RFC): "This memo provides information for the Internet
> community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." 
> ...

Why people pay no attention to the words is irrelevant.  We all know
it's true, and can name several commercial outfits that have tried to exploit
that fact.  Moreover, some very important de facto standards have carried
such disclaimers.  Consider SLIP.

> ...
> Editorializing is unnecessary, as is "assessment of the practice".  Come
> on, people!  This is an _Informational_ submission.  If the _information_
> provided is incorrect or unclear, then correct it.  Otherwise, publish the
> damn thing and quit wasting space in my Inbox.

That's disingenuous.  If the only issue were "submission," no one would
care.  The draft could be submitted directly to the RFC editor's /dev/null.
Instead, the issue is the publication by the IETF of a document that
10,000,000 people will understand as an official legal standard.  Whether
the hordes are right, wrong, stupid, or smart is irrelevant.  We all know
what they will do.

> ...
> The obvious answer to this problem is to educate the public, rather than
> to suppress information on how things are done.

You mean like many big companies "educate the public"?  Out of politeness
to Mr. Zorn and his assumed his good will, I'm trying not to mention
certain other educational documents that were famous, labeled "RFC,"
documented incompatible and entirely unnecessary changes to IETF PPP
standards, and were never even seen by the RFC editor, but it is a strain.
I think those particular documents were produced and published through
ignorance instead malice or conscious "embrace and extend" policies, but
the point remains that reality is what it is, not what it should be in
some theories.

>                                                              rather than
> to suppress information on how things are done.

"Suppress information"?  So if an Information RFC is not published,
the security officers from the Office of RFC Editor will make rounds,
purging disks and sending people to camps for re-education?--wow.

Seriously, exactly what would happen if the draft were not published?
What would work worse?  Since this is about an old, established practice,
what's the big deal in the real world?  Since it is an old, established
practice, anyone trying to be compatible with it would treat any RFC as
at most a supplement, and look elsewhere for the authoritative
specifications.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]