Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC

[Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>]

>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:20:54 -0500, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> said:

  Robert> Did you catch this guy's rant on IETF that the IETF needs to take control
  Robert> of the RFC process becuase anyone can 'no longer' publish?

You seem to have completely missed the points of my "rant".

I suggest you read my messages again.

I have NEVER suggested that IETF needs to take control of
the RFC process.

Let me summarize for you the consistent points that I
have been making since Feb. of last year -- and even
before that -- in the form of simple bullets so that you
may have a better chance of understanding them:

  - The Internet technical community needs a STRONG and
    INDEPENDENT RFC Editor so that *NON-IETF*,
    *NON-standards-track* documents can be published in a
    reasonable manner.

  - The purpose and scope of the IESG review/referral
    should be limited to what RFC 2026 says its should
    be. That is: identification of conflicts of the
    document with the IESG/IETF's work. Anything more
    than that runs into IESG's  conflict of interest
    problem.

  - In practice, the RFC Editor appears too weak.

  - In practice, the IESG/I... appears too power hungry
    and out of control.


Got it?


...Mohsen.