[rfc-i] [Trustees] RFC means RFC, not Request For Comment
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Oct 25 07:29:38 PDT 2011
You appear to believe the problem is that sometimes, some people do not
understand much about the IETF or its document series. They hear one word from
the series name and choose to interpret it in a purely dictionary form rather
than learn anything about the organization.
You are confusing the mere existence of islands of confusion with effects of
serious damage. Worse, you appear to believe that people's abilities to
misunderstand things can be controlled by a label or a trademark.
Again: These issues have been present for 20 years.
Again: In spite of anecdotes such as you cite, there is no documentation of
/serious/ problems that are caused from any of this.
Rather than fix a problem that is mildly irritating, shouldn't we focus on ones
that are substantial?
 Your reference to expert witness context is almost amusing, given how much
time a witness spends in explaining background, conventions, terminology and the
like. In particular, patents are about the definition of new terms and
contexts. This is just one more. Better still is that a witness spends quite a
bit of time countering the other sides' efforts to discount things. This is
merely one, rather minor, example. If the witness cannot adequately establish
the role and status of IETF specifications, the witness has bigger problems. The
more substantial line of attack on the status of RFCs is that the IETF has no
authority derived from a country or the U.N. It, too, is specious.
By the way, as a rule, it's a bad idea to let an opposing counsel's line
of attack serve to set the agenda...
More information about the rfc-interest