Re: "professional" in an IETF context

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 11:13 PM Keith Moore 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/31/21 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>     > I repeat my suggestion that s/unprofessional/uncivil/ would fix the
>     > document under discussion.
>
>     Perhaps it would.   And all other things being equal, a simpler
>     fix is
>     attractive.  But I don't know why others seem to insist on
>     "professional".
>
>
> The reason mybe that it is thought that only who authors an RFC is 
> professional.
> As years while checking in IETF context, it is seen some new people 
> IETF motivation can be heard that 'you should write an RFC', but maybe 
> a better motivation is 'you should work/discuss with one WG together 
> regarding one milestone for progress.
> If the word 'professional' makes confusion it is better to change it, 
> or define it in the document.
> I totally agree with the definition give by Keith, which is in the 
> beginning of thread, so please add it to the draft.
>
>
Is that really true, though?  We certainly have a lot of protocols, 
written by amateurs - some of which have ignored RFCs and led to their 
own standards processes.  Are there not RFCs similarly written by folks 
with limited experience?  Or is it that "unprofessional" RFCs don't make 
it past the RFC editorial process?

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown