Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 03:58:47PM -0400, Eric C Rosen wrote:

> certainly have no problem with that.  We shouldn't force researchers to
> publish their work as RFCs.  (I didn't think we did so, but ...)

Indeed.

> But that's really irrelevant to the main topic of this discussion. What we
> are primarily discussing is whether we should prohibit folks from publishing
> RFCs when they want to do so and find it valuable to do so.  That's a
> completely different question.

It's a distinct question, but (as Ted argued) I think it's still
on-topic.

But I think your way of describing this issue has a certain merit,
because you are in effect asserting that there is no benefit to the
Internet community in having a gateway function to the RFC series.
One proposed such gateway is IETF consensus, and the argument for that
is that some significant population of people seem to believe already
that the IETF is who is responsible for RFCs (see the remark I posted
yesterday about Googling this).  So, the argument goes, we should
align what we claim with the way things are on the Internet, just as
we might do in the case of our own protocols.

Others seem to be arguing that the RFC series should in fact welcome
anything on any topic, and as long as they can find someone willing to
let them in, there's no reason they shouldn't be in the RFC series too
(i.e. we shouldn't prohibit people "from publishing RFCs when they
want to do so and find it valuable to do so").  It is an interesting
question whether, if I wanted to publish an RFC about Wittgenstein's
remarks on colour, whether the ISE would consider it.  We do have the
April 1st ones, after all.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]