[rfc-i] Now tell me how to communicate this as effectively in plaintext

SM sm at resistor.net
Thu Apr 26 02:35:53 PDT 2012


Hi Phillip,
At 18:51 25-04-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>I can't get the younger security engineers to work in IETF. They have
>been turned off by the politics and the habit of the older generation
>(i.e. folks like me) treading on their ideas.

And by the IETF turning a blind eye when the usual folks post 
unpleasant comments.

>So far they have been held at bay by folk pointing out that it would
>take just as long to get things done in IETF. But eventually they will
>realize that creating an alt-IETF would have one significant
>difference - there would be different people in charge, them instead
>of us.

People already flock to non-SDO groups because of time to 
publication, how things get done, etc.  This is more of an IETF 
problem than a RFC format problem.

"We" were told that there would be a rare bird which would lead "us" 
towards the path of enlightment.  The thread at 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2012-April/thread.html 
might paint a different picture.  There was a question posted to some 
mailing list ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05374.html 
).  The answer to that question is not in the Style Guide.  There is 
an answer which may be of interest to those who believe it is worth 
the time and effort to communicate ideas clearly.

There is sometimes a plausible explanation, sometimes it's a 
trade-off, for the nits around which a RFC is built.  It's difficult 
to say whether the "cavemen" format is a trade-off or not.

Regards,
-sm  



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list