Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Todd Glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Why is this true - I am not saying its not but its an assertion that is undocumented and unsupported. So how does this work - why would the series be less valuable and because of what - this is a key question in establishing a value propisition for the IETF's wares.

T
-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
>Sent: Aug 8, 2006 8:38 AM
>To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>
>Cc: leslie at thinkingcat.com, ietf at ietf.org, lear at cisco.com, Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>, mankin at psg.com, hardie at qualcomm.com, john-ietf at jck.com
>Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
>
>>> Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
>>> it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to
>>> occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP,
>>> UDP etc. are "done evolving").  Hence, something would have to take
>>> the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately.
>>> 
>> 
>> What I said was that a gap in standards-track RFCs would render the 
>> series useless.
>
>I think this is basically correct.  The series wouldn't immediately
>become useless but would become less useful over time.  The individual
>documents for IP, TCP, etc. would continue to be useful until the
>community felt that they had been replaced.
>
>> Were we to be foolish enough to allow a prolonged hiatus in the RFC 
>> series, there would be other SDOs more than willing to take over 
>> maintenance and extension of the IP suite, of course labeling the
>> resulting standards "Implementation Agreements" or "Recommendations"
>> instead of "RFCs".
>
>pretty much agree with this also.  abandoning the RFC series (without an 
>immediate replacement from IETF) would create a vacuum that other SDOs 
>would be eager to fill.  even with an immediate replacement there would 
>likely be some market confusion if we changed the name from RFC to 
>something else.
>
>> More importantly, later IETF work (even if called "RFCs") would not
>> be readily viewed as a natural evolution of the original IP 
>> standards, and would require us to actively market them.
>
>concur.
>
>Keith
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf at ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf