Subject: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:06:22 -0500

Following the note just sent about the proposed timeline for
reviewing the RFC Editor contract this year, here is the
STRAW proposal RFC Editor charter proposed by the IAB.

It is a modest extension of the RFC Editor paragraph as found
in RFC 2850 (the IAB Charter).  

The purpose of this straw proposal is to inform discussions
scheduled for the GENAREA meeting at IETF65 in Dallas.
After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal
charter proposal.

STRAW RFC Editor Charter

The RFC Editor executes editorial management for the publication of the
"Request for Comment" (RFC) document series, which is the permanent
document repository of the IETF community.  The RFC series
constitutes the archival publication channel for Internet Standards
and for other contributions by the Internet research and engineering
community. RFCs are available free of charge to anyone via the
Internet. It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the
appointment of an organization to act as RFC Editor and the general
policy followed by the RFC Editor.

Policies, including those for defining publication tracks and
their requirements, intellectual property rights, as well as
editorial review and approval processes,  must be defined in
IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for
approval.

Leslie Daigle.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:29:04 -0600

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>

> After the Dallas meeting, the IAB will provide a more formal

What would help me most, in commenting on this charter, is an understanding 
of how much editorial autonomy the IETF expects the RFC Editor function to 
exercise in document publication. I have recently participated in an 
exchange on/off the techspec mailing list that has convinced me that I do 
NOT understand this (or, at least, that other smart people who I respect 
understand it differently).

I'm not even sure that I am hooked up well enough to ask more specific 
questions.

Or is this question premature, pending "editorial review and approval 
processes,  must be defined in IETF community consensus documents"?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:41:16 +1100

At 10:06 AM 17/03/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>...

>IETF community consensus documents before being put to the IAB for

Leslie,

It is unclear from the above if the RFC Editor's charter specifically 
includes the
actions of publication and repository management for RFC documents
("editorial management for the publication..." allows a variety of 
interpretations
of the specifics of this role).

It may  be useful for the IAB and the IAOC to consider whether the RFC 
Editor's charter
is specifically limited to the editorial task of production of 
publication-ready
documents, and to state such clearly in the charter (and  thereby pass the
responsibility of publication and repository  management to the IETF 
Secretariat),
or whether to call out in this charter in clearer terms  that the RFC 
Editor is responsible
for publication and repository management in addition to editorial actions 
relating
to document preparation.

I would personally advocate the IAB's adoption of a charter that explicitly 
defined the
role of the RFC Editor as an editorial  role responsible for the production 
of publication-
ready documents in a specified set of document formats and fold the publication
and repository management tasks into the IETF Secretariat function.

regards,

  Geoff Huston

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:57:24 -0500

I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe
is going to be a common thread:

[Ran Atkinson wrote:]
> Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
> publication of non-IETF documents.  The IETF process properly
> should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
> for publication.  However, the IETF processes ought not govern
> how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the
> RFC Editor.

TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically.

The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be
for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.

> 
> When the current IAB/IESG organisational structure was setup,
> it was a deliberate choice to have the RFC Editor under the IAB
> and not under the IESG -- because the RFC Editor's scope was
> (and is) much larger than the IETF or the IESG's scope.  Requiring
> that all policies have to go through the IETF processes (which
> many IETF people consider badly wedged) for approval is a major
> and undesirable change, IMHO.

The goal is to have a public means for defining, adjusting and
agreeing to the requirements of those tracks.    Better formulations
for that welcomed!

Leslie.

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:39:37 -0800 (PST)

Hi Leslie -

It would be really helpful to understand what the RFC Editor
thinks of this proposed charter.  Have you run it by them and
what was their reaction?

It would be equally helpful to understand where the IAB/IAOC 
is going with this ... are there plans to rebid the contract 
to another organization?  Are there problems with the current
performance of the function that you're hoping to fix by
the re-chartering?

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:40:59 -0500

Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with
the timeline)?

Thanks,
Leslie.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:45:39 -0500 (EST)

> for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.

and 1 april RFCs?

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:16:22 -0800 (PST)

> Carl -- did you get the other message (the one with

Yes, I did.  Not having been party to the discussions, I'm
not quite sure what is going on.  We did a sole source
re-assignment of the IETF secretariat.  As I said in my
note, I'm curious about:

1. the opinion from the RFC-Editor about this, in particular
the charter.
2. what the IAB/IAOC is thinking ... this could be a sole
source reassignment or a simple renewal.

I appreciate that a lot of thought obviously went into
preparing your two notes, I'd just like to hear some of
the background.

Best regards,

Carl

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:10:14 +0100

Carl,

my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole source 
contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in general, 
a Bad Idea.

The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it to 
be sole sourced, but I interpreted the words from Leslie's timeline:

 May 7 2006[IASA]
	Request for Vendor Expressions of Interest

to mean a public request, where more than one organization is welcome to 
show interest.

Continuity has value, but I think it is up to the IASA to determine how 
continuity is weighted against other factors.

         Harald (who has only public knowledge at this point)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:30:18 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> What would help me most, in commenting on this charter, is an 
> understanding of how much editorial autonomy the IETF expects the RFC 
> Editor function to exercise in document publication.

My personal answer is that this is for the IETF to decide and
that is what the charter language allows. So we don't answer that
question before establishing the charter.

Now, I have opinions about what the IETF should decide in this area,
but that isn't the question on the table.

> I have recently 
> participated in an exchange on/off the techspec mailing list that has 
> convinced me that I do NOT understand this (or, at least, that other 
> smart people who I respect understand it differently).
> 

I believe it's logically premature; of course we are debating some
of that in techspec, because we need parallelism in the timeline.
draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt discusses another part of it.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:33:24 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Carl,
> 
> my impression as a bystander is that the IETF has decided that sole 
> source contracts (where only one contractor is permitted to bid) are, in 
> general, a Bad Idea.
> 
> The Secretariat contract had very special circumstances, which caused it 
> to be sole sourced, but I interpreted the words from Leslie's timeline:
> 
> May 7 2006[IASA]

There isn't much secret knowledge... but as an IAOC member,
I feel we've been told by the community to seek multiple proposals
when possible and appropriate, and in any case to be as transparent
as possible in the process.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:37:08 +0100

>>for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.

I suggest we discuss that 15 days from now...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:47:27 +0100

> for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.

I think there are a couple of points to add here.

1. Since it's the IETF nomcom process that appoints the IAB, and
the IAB that oversees the IRTF, it's a bit of a stretch to say that
the IAB and IRTF aren't part of the IETF family. It would be very
artificial to completely separate these discussions. They need to
converge in the RFP anyway.

2. We have a specific segment on the independent submissions
channel in the General Area open meeting in Dallas. I'm a defender
of the existence of that channel, but that doesn't mean it
is something that exists without being chartered, funded and
accountable in some way.

     Brian

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:07:14 -0500

> I suggest we discuss that 15 days from now...
And if there's an April 1 RFC on restructuring and administrative
activities, will anyone be able to tell what it is without looking at
the date?  

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500

On  16 Mar 2006, at 18:06, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> document repository of the IETF community.

It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades
has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited
to just "the IETF community".  For openers, the IRTF and IAB
are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously
related and co-operative.  More broadly though, the RFC Editor
has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the
IETF for many years now.  It would be a mistake to narrow the
RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do.

Proposed edit:
	s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/

> The RFC series

Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
publication of non-IETF documents.  The IETF process properly
should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
for publication.  However, the IETF processes ought not govern
how IRTF,From [email-masked] Fri Mar 17 15:43:55 2006
From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter 

On  16 Mar 2006, at 18:06, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> document repository of the IETF community.

It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades
has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited
to just "the IETF community".  For openers, the IRTF and IAB
are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously
related and co-operative.  More broadly though, the RFC Editor
has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the
IETF for many years now.  It would be a mistake to narrow the
RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do.

Proposed edit:
	s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/

> The RFC series

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

Disclaimer: Employed by, but not speaking for, Extreme Networks.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:11:19 -0500

> converge in the RFP anyway.

Brian,

	As you know, but have not mentioned in your paragraph above,
the IAB are officially appointed by the ISoC BoT && the IESG are
officially appointed by the IAB.  That is a significant fact,
legally.  Further, there are known cases during the last dec IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the
RFC Editor.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:11:19 -0500

Brian,

	As you know, but have not mentioned in your paragraph above,
the IAB are officially appointed by the ISoC BoT && the IESG are
officially appointed by the IAB.  That is a significant fact,
legally.  Further, there are known cases during the last decade
where a nominee from IETF NomCom was rejected as unsuitable by the
appointing body -- so it IS more than a rubber stamp.

	My note specifically noted that the IAB, IETF, and IRTF
are all affiliated, so I was not being obtuse here.  I would call
it the ISoc Family or Internet Family, however, not the IETF Family.
IETF is very important, but it is not the only important member
of the family.

	It WAS a very specific organisational design decision to have
the IAB become responsible for the RFC Editor, and not the IETF
nor the IESG, in the early 90s when the current organisational
structure was created.  There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents.  I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored
documents.

> is something that exists without being chartered, funded and

	Unfortunately, the IETF meetings do not currently have
much participation from non-IETF people who are involved in the
Internet community.  So that approach puts one segment of the
community in the position of deciding what is best for another
segment of the Internet community.

	It would be better if that open meeting were supplemented
by IAB outreach -- and an IAB-sponsored (not IESG-sponsored)
open call for input via email -- to the broader set of folks
in the Internet community who aren't currently very involved
in IETF meetings.

	The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and
not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create
or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as long as we have
the current organisational structure.  That process should be
as open as possible and should include specific outreach to members
of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

ade
where a nominee from IETF NomCom was rejected as unsuitable by the
appointing body -- so it IS more than a rubber stamp.

	My note specifically noted that the IAB, IETF, and IRTF
are all affiliated, so I was not being obtuse here.  I would call
it the ISoc Family or Internet Family, however, not the IETF Family.
IETF is very important, but it is not the only important member
of the family.

	It WAS a very specific organisational design decision to have
the IAB become responsible for the RFC Editor, and not the IETF
nor the IESG, in the early 90s when the current organisational
structure was created.  There was an understanding then that the
RFC Editor's role extends far beyond just publishing IETF-sponsored
documents.  I am concerned that this is not being acknowledged now.
I would feel a lot better if there were more public acknowledgement
that the RFC Editor's role extends far beyond the IETF-sponsored
documents.

> is something that exists without being chartered, funded and

	Unfortunately, the IETF meetings do not currently have
much participation from non-IETF people who are involved in the
Internet community.  So that approach puts one segment of the
community in the position of deciding what is best for another
segment of the Internet community.

	It would be better if that open meeting were supplemented
by IAB outreach -- and an IAB-sponsored (not IESG-sponsored)
open call for input via email -- to the broader set of folks
in the Internet community who aren't currently very involved
in IETF meetings.

	The IAB (or possibly ISoc BoT, but more obviously IAB and
not the IESG) ought to be running and driving any process to create
or modify a formal RFC Editor charter, at least as long as we have
the current organisational structure.  That process should be
as open as possible and should include specific outreach to members
of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:29:13 +0100

Ran,

RJ Atkinson wrote:
>   There was an understanding then that the
It may have been true in 1993.

At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond the 
IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC Editor's 
output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the motivation for 
people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; *all* of the funding 
for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC.

At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better or 
worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process for other 
purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should).

But I do not believe that the concept of an RFC Editor that is 
independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.

                      Harald

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:22:55 -0500

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> IETF for many years now. 

But there's an important caveat there: the IESG does check for
conflicts between individual submissions to the RFC editor and IETF
work -- see Section 3 of RFC 3932.  I, for one, don't want to change
that policy.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:54:46 +0100

At 22:29 17/03/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>At the moment, the part of the RFC Editor's role that extends beyond 
>the IETF-sponsored documents is a small fraction (5%?) of the RFC 
>Editor's output, and, I suspect, an even smaller fraction of the 
>motivation for people and organizations to sponsor the RFC Editor; 
>*all* of the funding for the RFC Editor comes through ISOC.
>
>At this moment, the RFC Editor is a function controlled, for better 
>or worse, by the IETF. The IETF may choose to use the RFC process 
>for other purposes than publishing IETF documents (and I think it should).
>

RFC 3935 claims leadership for the IETF in influencing "the way 
people design, use and manage the Internet". This is achieved through 
RFCs and through the IANA, in English. If the NTIA sells the IANA and 
the RFC Editor is independent from the IETF, this will put the IETF 
in competition for QA and ethic documents. Would it be bad?. 
Leadership would then swicth to RFC Editor and IANA and to those able 
to influence them outside of the IETF. You may recall that IANA has 
the full right today (MoU with IETF and ICANN) to publish other 
registries that  IETF registries. But who would be globally 
authoritative? No one, and this would be confusion.

This is the core of our contention over RFC 3066 Bis. You tried to 
impose the RFC Editor the positions of an external consortium to the 
IETF.  You try to retain, for you and Members of that consortium, the 
IESG duties concerning its related IANA registries. I oppose you on 
the grounds of your doctrine. But I think that your approach is 
pragmatic and consistent with the today nature of the IANA, of the 
RFC Editor, and of the IETF. And I played on it to in fact win 
against you, partly at the IETF, mostly outside of it, where I wanted it.

What is proposed today is actually to accept the consequences of this 
(and hopefully organising it), or to restaure the situation. The 
questions IMHO are:

- should the IETF _try_ to influence, or should it _want_ to serve, 
those who  design, use and manage the Internet?
- should the IETF (which by essence is a protocol 
engineering/maintenance structure) focus on RFCs or keep consistently 
documented and updated Internet technology FAQs.This would make it a 
third equal level entity together with IANA and RFC Editor. A Trinity 
which may be efficient, but where the IETF still has the capacity to 
issue RFCs (as IAB, IESG, NSF, IGF, etc.) but where it would maintain 
the "last word" through its "HOW TO". What is the influence anyone 
can have with 4200 documents?

jfc

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:40:36 -0800 (PST)

> independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.

I think a degree of independence is an important part of the
checks and balances that have been established and is necessary 
to attract a person of the stature needed to continue the role 
of the RFC Series as the canonical documents that define the Internet.  

If we consolidate too much, we cease to be an association of
individuals working together to produce a rough consensus and
working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy.

Carl

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:09:59 -0800 (PST)

> as possible in the process.

Hi Brian -

I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
and appropriate").  However, we may disagree on the last part ("transparent
as possible").  My formulation would be "transparent" without the
qualifier.  Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.

The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a system 
in place where anybody can participate, including participation by email 
(one of our hallmarks).

At the beginning of this exchange, I asked a pretty simple set of
questions:

1. What does the RFC-Editor think of all this?
2. Might we be looking at a situation that would result in a sole-source
   procurement again?

Given the many years of service by the RFC-Editor, I can't evaluate
the proposed actions in context, particularly if they weren't part of 
the so-called strawman charter drafting process.  And, it would be very 
reassuring to hear a firm statement about the prospects for sole-source 
procurement or other non-competitive reassignment of core functions.
 
Carl

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:09:05 -0800

Hi Carl,

> of the RFC Series as the canonical documents that define the Internet.

I really have no problem with that independence being exercised for
individual submissions that have gone through very limited or no peer
review.  But once peer review within the IETF, IESG, IRTF, or IAB has
occurred, it's not for the RFC Editor to second guess technical
decisions.  I want an RFC Editor who can spot an inconsistency in a
specification, ask a question, and use some judgment as to whether the
matter needs to be reviewed by the relevant AD.  That's a hard enough
job that requires a broad knowledge of the protocol suite, top to bottom.

> working code and begin to resemble a corporate hierarchy.

No knowledgeable individual would ever assert that the IETF is anywhere
near as efficient as a corporate hierarchy.

Eliot

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:28:44 -0800 (PST)

> near as efficient as a corporate hierarchy.

I'd say efficiency is not necessarily the metric.  Contributions to
science, engineering, infrastructure, and society are better
metrics.  In that sense, I'd say the IETF has been far more
successful than any corporation, with the nice side benefit that
a few corporations have benefited.  But, that's not our mission.

If I wanted to participate in a corporate hierachy, I'd do so in
a job.  Our mission is making a global Internet and, IMHO, that
requires a different organizational structure.

Carl

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:49:05 -0500

Carl,

Carl Malamud wrote:
> Yes, I did. 

Good - and I'd like to hear your comments on *that*.

 > I'm curious about:

I assume you're asking this generally -- I would not presume
to speak for the RFC Editor on that question.

> source reassignment or a simple renewal.

It is *not* news that there would be an RFP for this
role in 2006 -- this is an attempt to get the plan out to
the community for discussion in advance of execution.

As Brian observed, the IAOC has understood the community
to prefer solicitation for multiple bidders on any given
function.  That doesn't in any way preclude the possibility
of the appointment going to our current RFC Editor crew,
but it does mean that the IETF gets an opportunity to
review the task, its expectations/requirements of it, and
the relationship (contract) to carry out the work.

Leslie.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:53:11 -0500

Suggestion?  Are they independent submissions, or RFC Editor
contributions?  They are clearly not currently IAB, IETF
or IRTF docs...

Leslie.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:56:38 -0500 (EST)

I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by
teh RFC Editor staff)

Scott

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:48:21 -0800

> I think they are independent submissions (not generally written by

I agree, I also think they are individual submissions...but today RFC  
Editor select/approve which ones of the submitted ones are "good  
enough" to become april 1 RFC's...and I think that was your point Scott?

    Patrik

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:45 -0800

>>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:43:35 -0500, RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]> said:

  Ran> It is a bug that the scope of the RFC Editor, which for decades
  Ran> has been the broader Internet community, has above been limited
  Ran> to just "the IETF community".  For openers, the IRTF and IAB
  Ran> are not properly part of the IETF, though they are obviously
  Ran> related and co-operative.  More broadly though, the RFC Editor
  Ran> has handled Internet documents that had nothing to do with the
  Ran> IETF for many years now.  It would be a mistake to narrow the
  Ran> RFC Editor's scope as the above sentence appears to do.

Right on!

  Ran> Proposed edit:
  Ran> 	s/of the IETF community/of the Internet community/

Absolutely.

  Ran> Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
  Ran> publication of non-IETF documents.  The IETF process properly
  Ran> should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
  Ran> for publication.  However, the IETF processes ought not govern
  Ran> how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the
  Ran> RFC Editor.

Exactly.

The RFC Editor's independence needs to be
strengthened. Not weakened.

The IETF is just one customer of the RFC
Publication Service. 

RFC publication and the RFC Editor predate
IETF/IESG/...

Since establishment of the IETF, the main
innovation in the Internet; the Web; was through a
non-ietf RFC publication. It is a good thing that
W3C has been using the RFC Publication Service.

IETF should not be permitted to interfere with
other uses of the RFC Publication Service.

Allowing IETF/IESG/... to control the RFC
Publication Service will be to the detriment of
the broader Internet community.

It should be expected of the RFC Editor to publish
non-IETF RFCs despite objections from IETF/IESG.
How often has this happened? I managed to do it,
but it was very difficult. What is being proposed
will make things worse.

Shortly after this note, I will send two messages
dating back to 1998-2000.

One is with regard to a complaint against the RFC
Editor for lacking a back bone and the IESG for
being irresponsible in the case of RFC-2188.  My
recommendations for a remedy there are consistent
with Ran's observations. I had to drive that
complaint to be able to publish RFC-2524 despite
IESG's objections. See:
http://www.emsd.org/communicationRecord/rfc2524Publication/maillist.html
for details. Has there been other cases where the
RFC Editor chose to publish a RFC despite of
IESG's don't publish recommendation?

The second is the Policies and Procedures of the
Free Protocols Foundation
        http://www.freeprotocols.org 
which propose a model for independent entities
creating an environment for a market oriented
protocol development process.

IETF's culthood will be further strengthened, if
the RFC Editor's independence was to be further
weakened.

...Mohsen

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:43:14 -0500 (EST)

> I think that was your point Scott?

I just wanted to be sure the list of RFC types was complete

Scott

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:00:39 +0100

Carl,

I disagree with your assertion.

Transparency is an important tool - but it is a tool, not the mission.

There are instances where one has to choose between transparency and 
other valuable properties, like making the process work at all, or 
making it possible to make the process work in a manner acceptable to 
the laws of the land.

I would definitely not want a stronger statement than "as transparent as 
possible".

                Harald

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:28:17 -0800

> independent of the IETF is a sustainable model at this time.

Harald,

The point is that the past IESG practice which has driven out those who
would submit individual submissions, resulting in the current ratios, MUST
NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward. The RFC editor
role needs to be extricated from the overbearing IESG and returned to its
independent role. Doing otherwise further fragments the community which will
only lead to its downfall.

Tony

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:06:06 -0600

Hi Tony,

>NOT become the guide for what SHOULD happen going forward.
>
Actually, RFC 3932 already makes it quite clear what the role
of the IETF and the IESG is in the individual submissions process.
My understanding is that this makes the IESG much less in charge
of what the individual submissions say than what the situation
was before. Basically, there's only a check for conflict between
the submission and IETF work. And obviously, non-IETF documents
get a note which clearly explains that the document is not
an output of the IETF.

So, I would actually expect the situation has improved since
the publication of RFC 3932. The rules seems clear and
fair to me. Tony, if you have had bad experiences, have they
been before or after RFC 3932?

--Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:47:29 +0100

Ran,

I could argue with quite a lot of what you say, but
I won't. Cutting to the chase:

RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
> the current organisational structure.

The IAB is doing so. This thread was started by the IAB Chair
and I'm an IAB member.

   That process should be
> of the Internet R&E community, not primarily focused on IETF folks.

I think it *should* be primarily focussed on the IETF and IRTF
communities. Those are, objectively, the people who generate the
overwhelming majority of RFCs.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:02:17 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a 
>> system in place where anybody can participate, including participation 
>> by email (one of our hallmarks).
> 
> Carl,
> 

This is in fact exactly what BCP 101 calls for - see the first
paragraph of section 7.

     Brian

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:39:10 -0500

> contributions?  They are clearly not currently IAB, IETF

The crisp distinction between "independent submission" and
"RFC Editor contribution" has so far eluded me.  If there is a
crisp definition for either or both, I would appreciate a pointer
to an RFC explaining the distinction.

As near as I can tell, these are the classes of not yet published
documents seeking to become RFCs that exist today:
	IETF contribution
	IRTF contribution
	IAB contribution
	RFC Editor contribution

Education, preferably with citations to RFC(s) would be very welcome.
As I understand it, the 2nd case (IRTF contribution) is currently
being discussed in an active I-D from the IRTF Chair.

Thanks,

Ran