Subject: RTFR: Writing An Informational RFC

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:11:22 +0800

Sure General Warning: 
   --------------------------------------------------------
   This following is not related to any specific situation. 
   Similarities is perhaps just a coincident :^). An auto-
   filter has been set in the CC:-line.
   --------------------------------------------------------

Supposed someone was falling in love with anything related to queuing
theory like m/m/1, m/m/n, Markov chains, buffers, et. al., and so on.
Then, she (or "it" ?) wrote a thick exhaustive theoretical manuscript 
about this issue, including ideal packet size, ideal buffer size (if 
any), packet discarding rules, buffer level (IP or TCP), performance 
evaluation, et. al. and so on. Just assume that even a special chapter 
was added for discussing on how poor the router industry is currently 
handling this issue.

Somehow, she thought that it was a good idea to document her findings
into a brief Informational RFC. Although, she had no idea how to publish, 
she was encouraged after reading these following RFCs, unaware of
the harsh environment in the real IETF realm.

RFC-30: DOCUMENTATION CONVENTIONS
   "First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as
   ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and
   discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas. Second,
   there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we
   hope to ease this inhibition."
   (comments: it is still an excellent idea, 30 years after!)

RFC-1796: Not All RFCs are Standards
   "The "Request for Comments" (RFC) document series is the official
   publication channel for Internet standards documents and other
   publications of the IESG, IAB, and Internet community [...]
   The IAB believes that publication is better than ignorance.  If a
   particular specification ends up being used in products that are
   deployed over the Internet, we are better off if the specification is
   easy to retrieve as an RFC than if it is hidden in some private
   repository."
   (comments: the IETF is the main contributor of RFC publishing,
   but not the only one).

RFC-2026: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
   "An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process."
   (comments: from where does the perception of "slowing down the
   publishing process is a good idea[sm]" come from? We have OC-192 
   links, 600 MHz CPUs, nanosecond RAMs, Terabyte storages, so why 
   is the publishing process still so sloooooow?)

What will possibly happen, when she send her I-D (=In-progress Draft)?
Will she be asked "to go back to the drawboard" for fixing the poor
practices of the router industry? Or, the I-D will be rejected because
no one found that issue interesting?

regards,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT --  http://www.vlsm.org/rms46/ -
- Omigosh: Citizen->Sovran->Nations->Bank of America->next? -m/tic-

---

From: "P.L.Sahkhar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:40:56 +0530 (IST)

unsubscribe ietf

---

From: "P.L.Sahkhar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:40:56 +0530 (IST)

unsubscribe ietf