[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Mon Dec 8 12:20:18 PST 2008


Leslie,

I was kind of hoping no one would open that particular can of worms, 
because we do know that the definition of IETF is fuzzy... ;-)

However, that being said my opinion is the following.

First off, it is important to remember that IETF WGs produce more than 
just standards track RFCs. They often produce Informational and 
Experimental RFCs as well. While they do not receive as much scrutiny as 
standards track RFCs do, I still view an Inf document from an IETF WG 
differently from one submitted directly to the RFC Editor. Part of my 
problem with the current text is that the boilerplate for independent 
submissions appears to distinguish itself only from the standards 
process and not other outputs of the IETF.

Secondly, while IRTF certainly is a part of the loose collection of 
entities around the IETF, it has always been clear to me that it stands 
for research whereas IETF stands for engineering. So I feel actually 
pretty good about saying IRTF output is not IETF output and vice versa.

Finally, I do not even hope to be able to answer the question of whether 
the IAB is part of the IETF or outside it. This is why I did not ask for 
any change with respect to that boilerplate text. I'm happy with the way 
it is.

So, in summary my opinion is that we only need one change: clarifying 
the independent submissions from not just IETF standards work but also 
from other IETF work.

Jari



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list