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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:24:21 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>

> ...
>  >Henceforth, the IESG should publish no Internet Drafts except those that
>  >are products of IETF working groups or the IAB, and implement that exit
>  >from the usenet-like publishing world by requiring a go-ahead from a
>  >working group chair, area director, IESG member, IAB member before
>  >publishing any draft.
>
> I generally like that idea (and I presume you mean it to apply also to
> any short-cuts to unsponsored Info RFCs)...

The idea is to cut off the flow of both short-cut non-working group product
Info RFC's and purely bogus I-D's.

Unlike others, I doubt any I-D was ever submitted with the idea of shipping
a product and then forgetting the I-D.  There have been product plans that
start with "publish I-D and RFC to gain mindshare," but the marketeers do
want their I-D's to become RFC's when they submit the I-D.  That sales
people often have trouble sticking to long term goals does not mean they
didn't intend to go all of the way to an RFC when they started.  Some IETF
insiders have used the I-D process to try to give their minority views
more weight, but even they also wanted their words to published as an RFC.

>                                            as long as the introduction
> of new ideas/proposals via BOFs and other mechanisms (e.g., publication
> of articles in academic, industry, trade journals, and technical confs)
> is maintained and perhaps even strengthened (i.e., with publicity for
> the procedures, resources for meeting support, maybe even a quasi-
> permanent WG dedicated to "new ideas incubation" or something, etc.).

No, I am not suggesting that the IETF should censor other publishers.

Most WG's are already dedicated to new ideas incubation.  An IETF BOF
by definition has the support of at least the IESG.  People who want to
publish without let, leave, or hindrance already have the WWW and Usenet.
There is no need for the IETF to give it's imprimatur to all ideas from
everywhere; that is the crux of the problem at hand.

I have proposed and still think it would be good for the IETF to create
a general Internet mailinglist to draw off the traffic of those who want
their views on legacy programmers, the secret conspiracy of ICANN, the
IETF and the Trilateral commission, etc. to be heard without so called
censorship by the IETF.  I think that's not relevant to this notion.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]