Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC

[Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <199812182016.MAA26549@rostam.neda.com>, Mohsen BANAN writes:
> 
> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:20:54 -0500, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.c
> om> said:
> 
>   Robert> Did you catch this guy's rant on IETF that the IETF needs to take c
> ontrol
>   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.

Why?  Why should the IETF run a publication service for you?
> 
>   - 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.
> 
>