[ih] theory and practice of RFCs?

[Dave Crocker]

On 12/13/2012 12:38 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote:
> The RFCs were truly Requests for Comments.  When the Network Working
> Group first specified a "Host to Host Protocol" it was deliberately not
> circulated as an RFC by Steve Crocker (its author) because it was
> intended as a _specification_, not as a request for comments.

Interesting tidbit.  I hadn't heard/remembered that.


> If you had an idea, or a comment on someone else's idea, or any document
> that you thought should be brought to the attention of the community,
> you asked Steve Crocker, or later the Network Information Center (NIC),
> for an RFC number, put it at the top of your paper document, and sent it
> to the NIC for copying and distribution to the "technical liaison"
...
>     But it was still possible to submit an
> RFC without any review except for format in the early 1980's.  I don't
> know when the RFC series became as tightly controlled as it is now, but
> I know it was after RFC 905, published in April 1984.

Right.  My recollection is that any request for publication as an RFC 
was processed.  I do not recall any rejection/pushback from the 'RFC 
Editor' until quite a bit later, on the order of the 90s or very late 80s.

The modern IETF certainly filtered documents, but that started in the 
late 80s.  As the IETF became more proprietary about what documents got 
published, the RFC Editor was pressed to pay attention to the 
possibility that an independent document was, somehow, an 'end run' 
around the IETF.  I think this is what caused the RFC Editor to start 
using more active filters on what got published.[*]

The wrinkle to my memory is the fine-grained review that Jon Postel 
offered.  I don't remember when that did/did-not occur.

d/


[*]  Of course, the long-term exception to all this has been the 
non-existent April 1 RFC...


-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net