Re: Watershed.

["Daniel J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

My questions to Vint Cerf still stand. My request to Phill Gross still
stands---Mike StJohns just *admitted* that he is not obeying RFC 1310
lines 326ff. And my suggestion to change Ident's port number still
stands---Mike StJohns didn't point out a single reason not to change it.

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> Since you obviously have no idea of how this works.

You're quite right, Mike, I don't! I keep trying to find out and I run
into people like Steve Crocker who spend months not telling me. Finally
I happen across RFC 1310, which seems to answer my questions---but it
seems that RFC 1310 is nothing more than a false advertisement for a
standards process which really doesn't achieve its stated goals.

Here's a perfect example. Mike says this:

> 1) I submit something as an ID - I simultaneously ask the Security Area
> director and the IESG to consider it for standardization.

and RFC 1310, under the name of Lyman Chapin, says this:

      After completion to the satisfaction of its author and the
      cognizant Working Group, a document that is expected to enter or
      advance in the Internet standardization process shall be made
      available as an Internet Draft.  It shall remain as an Internet
      Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review,
      at least two weeks, before submission to the IESG.

How am I supposed to figure out what *really* goes on? You say that you
submit something to the IESG before it's even published as an I-D; Lyman
Chapin says that the document shall remain as an I-D for at least two
weeks before being submitted to the IESG.

So here we have Mike StJohns and Lyman Chapin saying totally different
things. What's *really* going on? What's really *supposed* to go on? How
am I---or anyone else who isn't an insider---supposed to find out?

Several people echoed this sentiment on the tcp-ip and ietf lists when I
complained about previous violations of RFC 1310. For instance, here's
what Ronald Khoo said: ``Specifically, we tend to depend upon the
published rfcs and drafts. If you're telling us that we mustn't believe
the RFC that documents the standards procedure, then how are we supposed
to figure out what RFCs we are supposed to take seriously ?''

---Dan