[rfc-i] [Trustees] RFC means RFC, not Request For Comment

Dave CROCKER 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.[1]

Rather than fix a problem that is mildly irritating, shouldn't we focus on ones 
that are substantial?


[1]  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...


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list