[ih] theory and practice of RFCs?

[Craig Partridge]

> > 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.[*]

I recall multiple distinct issues.  The three I remember are:

1. IAB review of RFCs leading to restarting of IETF WGs that felt they
   had finished their work.  As I recall this was a periodic source
   of friction by 1988.  Inevitably, at some point, an IAB review put
   its foot in it and demanded the IETF consider an alternative solution that
   the WG had evaluated and found flawed (I wish I could remember the WG
   that suffered this first).  This led to a perception that the IAB
   was an impediment -- a perception that played a role in the events
   following Kobe.

2.  Jon delaying publications of RFCs as RFC Editor.  This issue came to
   a head in late 1989 or so. The IETF was demanding prompt publication
   of urgent standards.   This is the era of the IETF desperately putting
   together standards a few minutes after midnight, as the Internet revealed
   problems that needed repair.  I don't recall Jon's reason for delaying
   documents.  I do recall that Jon, while distressed at what he viewed as
   an infringement on his role as RFC Editor, graciously agreed to stop
   delaying publication and his reputation (already high) went up as
   a result.

3.  The end run problem -- which came, I think, later (c. 1992?).

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

Jon was certainly doing detailed reviews by 1985 -- when I sent him
the first version of what became RFC 974, he asked detailed questions about
why it did what it did, and upon learning it was to fix a bug in the mail
handling RRs, asked me to work with Paul Mockapetris to devise a
replacement (which was how MX RRs came into place).

Thanks!

Craig