Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration

Pete Resnick <> Wed, 21 May 2008 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A6428C234; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648A928C218; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJO0X0KjtE2Z; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520E628C229; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.7); Wed, 21 May 2008 13:20:32 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06250105c45a15074413@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Eudora 6.2.5b1(Macintosh)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500
To: Ray Pelletier <>
From: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: ISSN for RFC Series under Consideration
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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." 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)?

(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 

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Incorporated
IETF mailing list