Info/exptl RFCs [Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

Brian E Carpenter brian@hursley.ibm.com
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:29:11 +0100


Ran,

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On Monday, Dec 16, 2002, at 15:36 America/Montreal, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > Alternatively, the RFC Editor can simply stop accepting submissions
> > from other than the IESG. Not only will that require a change to 2026,
> > but I think it likely that it will not make people in the IAB and IRTF
> > any happier.
> 
> I agree that such a change as quoted above would be strongly
> undesirable.
> There is substantial on-going value in Informational and Experimental
> RFCs
> originating from outside the IETF.  Examples of same include IAB RFCs,
> IRTF RFCs, and many individual submissions.

I agree.

> 
> If Brian wants to clamp off the funding for such RFCs, he might find
> that
> it creates massive unhappiness in the IETF community and might also
> find that
> it significantly reduces the value of all other RFCs.  I would hope the
> ISoc BoT would not act so rashly in actual fact and that Brian's
> comments
> were more of a debating tactic than an actual threat.

I don't think this is a debating tactic: if people want to reduce the
workload on the unpaid IESG service by moving part of it to the
paid RFC Editor service, this may have financial consequences. If the
IETF has a clear consensus that this is what is wanted, ISOC will
have to deal with it, but within real-world budget constraints.

So we need clarity on exactly what the IETF wants. All that RFC 2026
requires is for the RFC Editor to express an expert opinion for or
against publication, not to conduct a full document review. Do we want 
to change that?

> 
> Speaking for myself only,
> 
> Ran

   Brian
   (speaking for myself, but not forgetting my fiduciary responsibility
    as an ISOC Board member)