Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Fri Aug 3 23:02:03 PDT 2012
On 8/3/12 2:30 AM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>As to the 'IETF' part, I think there are two broadly different views of
>the relationship between the IETF and the RFC Editor. I'd call the first
>the "insider view". That view sees the IETF and the RFC Editor as two
>essentially totally separate entities. The second view I'd call the
>"outsider view". That view thinks IETF when they hear RFC, and RFC when
>they hear IETF.
>You seem to argue from the viewpoint of the "insider view". Joe and I
>seem to argue from the viewpoint of the "outsider view". So maybe we
>have to change levels and talk about these two views before we can talk
>again about branding.
I largely agree with what Martin is saying, but I'd tweak it a little bit.
Regardless of the format decided upon, we might decide to have a somewhat
different brand for consensus-based output of the IETF, IRTF, ISE, IAB,
Once you can have a brand that goes beyond the capabilities of the
lineprinter format, we might decide that the differences in brand are
important. Alternately, we might decide that the "RFC" brand is more
important than the brand of the organization or individual that produced
the work. I'm not convinced one way or the other yet, but it seems like
we should make an explicit decision.
For example, the fact that the IRC cluster of RFCs (2810-2813) is
informational and not really the output of a consensus-based approach by
the IETF has been surprising to many people that I've talked to over the
years. "It's got an RFC number, so it must be good"
Note: I'm not saying that IRC is bad here, or that the process was flawed,
or anything like that. The question is, to a casual observer, should
those RFCs look exactly the same (aside from the word "INFORMATIONAL" in
the title) as a fully consensus-based document?
More information about the rfc-interest