Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 08 September 2010 23:46 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A313A69A2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B88nVLVW+LSa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:21b:21ff:fe3a:3d50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431A53A6784 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9236B3E4087; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 00:46:47 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1283989607; bh=JcEFBIZYw3AeUS JpFhZItZLI4Kko9tgxKhepNQgdLaU=; b=60MPd/LEsVH3Q3153XMPEurJO4Lday ZCmjiCIjJsKsw3EkoXmQ/2jF2J7Zsk2b4RTmrxPxKOIJGRM8VTD/AGLOl5S4IkOH QTpyM9iz7x5XnXKeX1y63UpkI3X7idh4AsxGPirj/5BoSpr7zTTptCmsJy16qdmC yw3N1uTvuvdGfOFTf3zU9N3m0yxvXdsI1Ntk2gLk+VU5dp6GqVUIHdKyLYbJJU8d /+aPXt+tX+KTOUjavMFz15baguGUw/dRRj8CZtnBQiWW5wln0qajdZ6ergECsKzd tpsdQEObRjafntakvl9u024yLhOgmO4OAOqebtJQCPHxf2stqH/GTBwA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id skgiAExgyXmQ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 00:46:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (dsl-102-234.cust.imagine.ie [87.232.102.234]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17F3D3E407F; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 00:46:46 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4C882065.9030601@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:46:45 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C817C6F.8070303@gmail.com> <4C818963.4090106@bennett.com> <21B56D7B-F058-47C8-8CBB-B35F82E1A0D2@standardstrack.com> <0ECC03C0-63B9-401F-B395-ACFBDF427296@gmail.com> <7F4C5F55-E722-4DF4-8E84-8D25628C55A3@standardstrack.com> <038B62A2-6B53-4FC2-8BDD-E1C9D6BDFB82@bbn.com> <4C880393.2070701@gmail.com> <9EEABCD0-9A34-4857-80FE-0CDBF06EEE22@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <9EEABCD0-9A34-4857-80FE-0CDBF06EEE22@bbn.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:46:24 -0000
FWIW, I'm not at all confused by the various RFC streams and see no negatives and some positives in their existence. So let's keep it as-is please. Stephen. PS: I know of no "evil" RFCs but would welcome contrary opinions (not including rfc3514's version of evil). Maybe there are, recently, one or more companies espousing equivalent levels of evil to those envisaged in rfc3514, but who knows. On 09/09/10 00:25, Richard L. Barnes wrote: >> Finally, we are an open community encouraging a diversity of views, and >> it's sometimes necessary (and often desirable) to publish material from >> the community that meets none of the above criteria. Hence the >> Independent stream of RFCs. As everyone should know, the independence >> of the Independent stream is now guaranteed by a much more robust >> process than before (RFC 4846 and RFC 5620). Since RFC 4846 gives a >> complete explanation of why the Independent series exists, I won't >> repeat it here. > > Echoing somewhat Eric's original point -- we have the web now. There > are a multitude of fora in which material that doesn't meet the above > criteria can be published. Why does it need to be part of the RFC > series, other than the fact that we've always done it? > > I fail to find any of the justifications in RFC 4846 all that > persuasive. Choosing a few examples: > > o Discussion of Internet-related technologies that are not part of > the IETF agenda. > o Critiques and discussions of alternatives to IETF Standards-Track > protocols. The potential for such critiques provides an important > check on the IETF's standards processes and should be seen in that > light. > o Informational discussions of technologies, options, or experience > with protocols. > o Technical contributions (e.g., RFC 1810 [RFC1810]). > > These discussions happen all the time, all over the Internet. My > favorite recent example: > <http://arstechnica.com/security/guides/2010/09/twitter-a-case-study-on-how-to-do-oauth-wrong.ars> > > One venue more or less for these discussions isn't going to make a huge > difference, and using the RFC stream for them simply causes confusion as > to what's a "real" RFC. > > o Informational publication of vendor-specific protocols. > > Nowadays, vendors have web sites that describe their protocols. See, > for example: > <http://code.google.com/apis/gears/geolocation_network_protocol.html> > > --Richard > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 David Morris
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 John C Klensin
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ofer Inbar
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Matthew Ford
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Chris Fenton (Iridescent)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ben Niven-Jenkins
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Mans Nilsson
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Paul Hoffman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Gene Gaines
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Ronald Bonica
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Andrew G. Malis
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Stephen Farrell
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's David Morris
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Fred Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Olaf Kolkman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Shockey
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Kevin Fall
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Braden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Sam Hartman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Yoav Nir
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jari Arkko
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens