Re: [IAOC] ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

Ray Pelletier <> Wed, 21 May 2008 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5053A6BB3; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F923A68AB for <>; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.078
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYeFRZTiqpsM for <>; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D492E3A69C6 for <>; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B058844C130; Wed, 21 May 2008 14:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Authenticated sender: with ESMTP id 71F4844C0B1; Wed, 21 May 2008 14:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:36:07 -0400
From: Ray Pelletier <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: [IAOC] ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
References: <> <p06250105c45a15074413@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06250105c45a15074413@[]>
Cc: Working Group Chairs <>, IAB <>, IETF Discussion <>, IAOC <>, The IESG <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2050571106=="

Pete Resnick wrote:

>On 5/21/08 at 1:52 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>>The Trust believes there are advantages to indentifying the RFC 
>>Series with an ISSN.
>OK, maybe I'm getting suspicious in my (still slowly) advancing years:
>Nowhere in the message did I see words like, "The Trust has consulted 
>with lawyers/doctors/priests/old-crusty-IETFers and have found no 
>disadvantages to identifying the RFC Series with an ISSN."
The Trust did consult with lawyers, old-crusty-IETFers, RFC Editor, and 
found no disadvantages to indentifying the RFC Series with an ISSN. 

> Did the 
>Trust actually find no potential problems (in which case it would be 
>nice to hear that), have they not looked into it yet, or did they 
>find problems and you're not saying because you don't want to have a 
>big public discussion (in which case you're being dopey, because it's 
>gonna happen anyway)?
That we know!

>(For the record, had you said that the Trust did in fact consult the 
>tea leaves and everything looked on the up-and-up and they were 
>simply confirming this with the community, I would have immediately 
>said, "Fine with me." I'm happy to have people to whom such things 
>can be delegated, but I do want to hear the words "We've done our due 
We've done our due diligence, but we respect the community and the 
process, and seek its guidance.


IETF mailing list