[rfc-i] RFC 5000 on Internet Official Protocol Standards

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun May 11 16:24:33 PDT 2008

At 9:59 AM -0700 5/9/08, Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> - The data is not timely; according to the abstract it's describing
>   *> the situation as of almost three months ago. If the purpose was to
>   *> obsolete RFC 3700, a one-page RFC that just described rfcxx00.html
>   *> would have been much more useful.
>   *>
>It has taken 3 months to get permission from the IETF

Maybe you could have re-run the data to bring it up to date after you 
got permission.

>   *> - It shows how slowly the RFC publishing process is running. This RFC
>   *> sat in the queue for almost three months, as the first sentence of
>   *> the abstract makes clear.
>   *>
>Actually, it shows exactly nothing about how fast the process of
>editing and publishing goes.  It does show how fast the IETF
>management can make decisions.

Maybe you could have re-run the data to bring it up to date after you 
got permission.

>   *> - The "author" is an organization, not a person, breaking with
>   *> decades of practice. This could lead to companies using only the
>   *> company's name without a responsible individual's name for
>   *> Informational RFCs that describe their protocols; that would be a bad
>   *> change from the current policy.
>   *>
>We would be very happy if you could please resurrect that person.
>We miss him greatly.  But you are greatly over-reacting about the

Fully disagree. The policy is very important, and it is particularly 
disturbing that you decided to change the policy (a) when your 
employer was the author, (b) when this updates a document that has an 
author's names on it, and (c) when you did so without an 
Internet-Draft where people could comment on it.

This is about the current RFC Editor, not Jon. Blaming it on him (or 
the lack of him) seems odd this many years out.

>   *> All of these problems (other than the slowness) could have been
>   *> avoided if the authors had published an Internet Draft and asked for
>   *> comments, as is normal for documents that will become RFCs (other
>   *> than April 1 RFCs). I'm sure people on this list would have been
>   *> happy to review the draft and make suggestions.
>   *>
>I fail to see how that would have helped, given the situation.

More transparency when making policy changes is always better. An 
Internet-Draft of what you submitted to the IESG and IAB would have 
helped those of us who care about the RFC process to see what was 
going on. So would a notice to this mailing list. Please consider 
being more open with the community in the future.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list