[rfc-i] Overview document available
sm at resistor.net
Sun Nov 7 11:34:28 PST 2010
At 18:27 06-11-10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Because independent submissions are supposed to be peer-reviewed
>technical submissions that don't fit into the IETF, but are of general
>interest. That does include special efforts like avian carriers, which
>the IETF is unlikely to standardise, but not admin stuff.
Quoting RFC 4846:
'There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community,
predating the IETF by many years, of use of the RFC Series to publish
materials that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its
review and approval mechanisms. These documents, known as
"Independent Submissions", serve a number of important functions for
the Internet community, both inside and outside of the community of
active IETF participants.'
Special efforts like avian carriers and the evil bit gives an idea of
the mindset of the Internet community. RFC 2233 is considered part
of the Independent Submissions Stream. Having rigid restrictions on
what can be published in that stream is a disservice to the Internet
Community if we would like the stream to flourish. There is already
one IETF and we don't need another IETF-like stream.
At 19:08 06-11-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>The nice thing about the streams model is that it supports adding
>new streams, according to policies about content and approval that
>are tailored to different needs. One constituency that produce
>documents does not have to be held hostage to the Procrustean rules
>of another constituency.
Once we start adding streams, we might get into discussions about
whether a policy is needed to create new streams. If the Independent
Submissions Stream is kept light-weight, it is easier to respond to
the publishing needs of the Internet Community.
More information about the rfc-interest