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

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:40:12 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

Scott

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:49:53 -0400

Scott,

>have to think very hard if we want to change this.

I was never very comfortable with the principle, but was always confortable
with Jon's judgement in this regard.  Now that Jon is here to act as
editor, my comfort level has declined significantly.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:49:53 -0400

Scott,

Steve

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:31:10 -0400

> have to think very hard if we want to change this.

I wasn't suggesting that we eliminate this path - only that we state
very clearly that our primary purpose is to publish standards and 
related documents.  we can consider publishing other high-quality 
technical contributions that are relevant for the Internet community,
but this is secondary to our primary mission.  we don't need to waste 
our time trying to justify publishing, or not publishing, half-baked
ideas.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:31:10 -0400

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT)

Steve,

> editor, my comfort level has declined significantly.

The RFC Editor function was a joint work between Joyce & Jon.  Joyce
is still with us and my comfort level with her judgement is pretty high.
I echo Scotts concerns and feel that allowing the RFC Editor the leaway
to proceed as they have always done, without second guessing them, is
something that is valuable enough to keep.

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT)

Steve,

--bill

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:14:27 -0400

Bill,

I have great respect for Joyce and did not mean to diminish her
contribution to the RFC Editorship.  Nonetheless, given my long held
concern over having a very open publication policy, I have to stand by my
statement that, in Jon's absence, I am not comfortable continuing with this
policy.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:14:27 -0400

Bill,

Steve