[rfc-i] Thoughts on the Independent Stream

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat Oct 22 10:05:29 PDT 2011

Hi, all,

I heartily agree that there are RFCs which are too long or not useful.

This applies too all streams. Tagging one stream with that claim would require a bit of detailed analysis which has not yet been done.

Some facts:

- some independent submissions have led to substantive efforts in the IETF
	these are seeds to BOFs, WG documents, and RG documents

- some independent submissions have had substantial impact themselves
	including ideas not yet ready for the IETF,
	and protocols developed outside the IETF (some de facto standards)

- the IEEE, ACM, and even many for-profit publication services to NOT charge for publication. 

- some organizations have often over-length fees intended to offset publication costs. These are disappearing in some circles (the IEEE Comsoc has been discussing removing them), since they originated under an older model of (wood-pulp) publication. Most venues do have a page limit - and the RFC series would certainly benefit from that, IMO.

Finally, the RFC series - from its name alone, if not its history - was intended more towards the independent stream concept than primarily as standards. 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list