Subject: Re: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charetr

From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:28:30 +0100

Hi all,

On Sunday 25 January 2004 19.30, Scott Bradner wrote:
> this is a 'last call' for the newtrk draft charter before sending it
> off to the AD/IESG - please comment (if you are going to) by
> friday jan 30

Looks fine in my opinion.  Now the "fun" part will begin :-)

Cheers,

David

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:40:16 -0500

> I am wondering whether this remark is made with knowledge of the
> current reality and procedures for publishing independent submissions
> (which I gather is what you are discussing.)

Not if it has changed substantially since I was on IESG.
 
> I also wonder whether there some particular independent submissions
> whose recent publication offends you.  

No, nothing in particular.

For better or worse, RFCs are widely viewed as IETF's publication
series, and publication of a document as an RFC is widely viewed as
conferring IETF's imprimatur on that document, various statements to the
contrary notwithstanding. 

The confusion of "RFC" with "standard" in the public perception is a
related issue.

I'm not saying that any of this should necessariy be changed.  What I'm
saying is that the question of how we label our documents (which is
really what newtrk is about) has a lot to do with how things look to the
public.  And I really don't think we can fairly reexamine the question
of changing how we label our standards-track documents without also 
considering the other documents that appear to the public in the same
context - which currently happens to be the RFC series.

--
He not busy being born, is busy dying.		- Bob Dylan
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:03:36 -0500

>   *> For better or worse, RFCs are widely viewed as IETF's publication
>   *> series, and publication of a document as an RFC is widely viewed
>   as*> conferring IETF's imprimatur on that document, various
>   statements to the*> contrary notwithstanding. 
> 
> For better or for worse, NAT boxes are common in the Internet. I
> am sure that you therefore think we should change our protocols to
> better support them.

Do you _really_ want to invite a comparison between the ability of NATs to
accomodate the Internet's needs and the ability of the RFC series to
accompdate IETF's needs?  Frankly I think you folks are a lot more flexible
and adaptable than NATs could possibly be, and also a lot more interested
in seeing IETF succeed in the future even though it will require some 
changes for that to happen.

All of us who have been around IETF for awhile are attached to certain
aspects of how IETF has done things.  I don't think we can expect IETF
to function well in the future unless we let IETF evolve, and that means
that some of the things (not sure which ones) that some of us are 
attached to (not sure which of us) will have to change.  

At this point I don't think we really know what needs to change.  But
if we can't even have a discussion about changing some of those things,
IETF is doomed.