IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 14 January 2020 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE921208EA for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I-LN-1UJ16Ak for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EADB120B20 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF12F4074E; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108BBF4074E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6bOK_IkMb-4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f176.google.com (mail-oi1-f176.google.com [209.85.167.176]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CC98F4074C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f176.google.com with SMTP id a67so12767697oib.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=utLSbg0YSGKshQqgGH4Q29ftrBQXuzx32ja/PQPJRjo=; b=Z16otYc3v9yHE7RKv8v5xGqa35nIAeS+KabgsJaeV8xWHitI1C1l4R9TZfBXfu0w2Z 3yDN9/tVrwaai0Upv+5fBmMgd5a+RXaOcUwZbAHRs+pCEClf+hG/O83dW5HfrjHp0Bdn PYC5fY1Z3X+n9ziC/8fBmQY7x75o9FnBXeILhqcM+eOS4KeOmqU/H1YAp/gTw1bJ/6jK NdpVLGXIxLhprzcpm911STdqefXwyyPu5UdBfyqtc804E40bHoAdTozS6vx+l4q80RwH U0JiSunsVP6IEvS0KToyVk1Mestj5lbkf2gthb+nYD8ySJzM1MA5XRF3NTNA2b2IOkog M58Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUcLCEwspR9SFSzOul4LtSPowqfK4Eblhrjxx0R9SjmaA4xYN3T 75cPtUCxTMs45UipCHhSyC8Hc6WZ5MqfxsWe/Oo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzSffJOfAjJQgCi3JVe6hvE2RS88KK651hjNwF3SaD7kGARFhl15kvkOXBYF7p9fNXxzNorrFl2CP5y49D4HYg=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c30d:: with SMTP id t13mr17863659oif.166.1579026071539; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:21:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMBFgdFdT3CLYWDvK5QN7xQOnMo+SQLG0_yueqhthcd+bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBFgdFdT3CLYWDvK5QN7xQOnMo+SQLG0_yueqhthcd+bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:20:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjprpUb-_hM5Q7+a0bjWSVD6bTm3Dyf3MKs392gzws6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2340817053674843936=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

I have some concerns about the way the process is working with respect to
the new format.

We can in theory include SVG images. Only we can't because the spec as it
is written is for a subset of SVG that no existing tool supports. So we do
not have SVG images, we have a private spec.

Yes, I know a clique decided that they only wanted black and white images.
But I think that decision should have been made by the IETF as a whole and
in full knowledge of the consequence that it would only be possible to
include images that were created by hand or with IETF-specific tools.

I want a process in which it is clear that the IETF is the community that
defines policy of that type.


And of course then we run into all the problems caused by all the silliness
that comes from the RFC series not belonging to the IETF only it does only
it doesn't because we continue to pretend that we are multiple
organizations and one organization.

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email