Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
Ran, RJ Atkinson wrote: On 5 Jun 2006, at 02:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Earlier, Ran Atkinson wrote: It has NOT been the case in the past that IETF was the community in control of RFC-Editor. In fact, that would represent a major, and in many people's view highly undesirable, change. Historically, RFC-Editor has served the broader Internet community, including but not limited to the IETF. In fact, the RFC-Editor has existed since the late 1960s, yet the IETF did not even exist until the middle 1980s. Historically, yes. But I think we're discussing the future. Nevertheless, I personally support the existence of an independent submission mechanism, as part of a general pattern of checks and balances. (See below.) However, I'd like to ask for a definition of "the broader Internet community." Since about 1995, the Internet has been a public access network, so I could interpret the phrase as referring to several hundred million people at this point. Since the IETF is open to all, I'm puzzled how to draw a line around "the broader Internet community" that is meaningfully different from the IETF/IRTF/IAB community but less than the entire on-line population. Brian, It is a fair question. Different people might have slightly different formulations, but I don't think that those would be meaningfully different. Here is a starting point for a definition... I think that "the broader Internet community" at least includes folks around the world who are engaged in (non-IAB, non-IRTF, and non-IETF) Internet research and development or are academics otherwise involved with the Internet (e.g. through educating college students). I wouldn't want to exclude the operational and implementer community either. I think the phrase used in draft-iab-rfc-editor is probably the best short form: "the Internet research and engineering community." Note of course that there is no way to list off the names of that community, and any one of them would be a welcome IETF participant. Brian That collective group is not nearly several hundred million people. Further, that group also has a RFC Editor relationship that long predates the existence of IETF/IRTF -- and also has a current active relationship with the RFC-Editor that is separate from the IETF/IRTF. Their needs primarily relate to a substantial and workable mechanism for individual submissions to actually get published in a timely manner. As the IETF has become MUCH more commercially influenced over the past ~10-15 years, the non-product perspectives that such people often bring to the published RFC document series is increasingly important to the overall health of the Internet. IMHO. All, It is not an accident that the criteria for candidates for IAB are different than for IESG. In my experience, and I'm told that this is not a strange perspective, the IAB functions best when IAB has several members who come from the non-commercial R&D/Academic communities -- particularly members who are not particularly involved in IETF standards activities. Those folks can bring a fresh, non-commercial perspective to IAB functions, including but not limited to advice to the IETF/IRTF or input to the RFC-Editor function. Historically, such folks have often done so. As an example, Jon Crowcroft did a wonderful job, yet had not been active in IETF prior to his appointment to the IAB. Of course, he was already quite well known for his Internet research before then. For some years, I've been making this same general observation to the Nominating Committee. Yours, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
On 7 Jun 2006, at 04:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I wouldn't want to exclude the operational and implementer community either. I think the phrase used in draft-iab-rfc-editor is probably the best short form: "the Internet research and engineering community." Note of course that there is no way to list off the names of that community, and any one of them would be a welcome IETF participant. An important point is that one ought NOT have to be involved with IETF, which does standards, (or, for that matter, with IRTF or even ISOC) in order (A) to be able to use the RFC Editors services or (B) to be included in the community of interest. Thanks, Ran ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
Ran, RJ Atkinson wrote: Previously, someone wrote: I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major concern. Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor. Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those funds. [1] I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently, ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently, and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current* situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget. This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the least. With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is that representatives there consistently stated support of the "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC. Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to the creation of IASA. In particular I believe that the IETF should be able to pass a BCP placing requirements on an rfc-editor stream. We've done this with RFC 3932 for example, and I think that was a good thing. In effect, community consensus within the IETF should trump anything else. It has NOT been the case in the past that IETF was the community in control of RFC-Editor. In fact, that would represent a major, and in many people's view highly undesirable, change. Historically, RFC-Editor has served the broader Internet community, including but not limited to the IETF. In fact, the RFC-Editor has existed since the late 1960s, yet the IETF did not even exist until the middle 1980s. Historically, yes. But I think we're discussing the future. Nevertheless, I personally support the existence of an independent submission mechanism, as part of a general pattern of checks and balances. (See below.) However, I'd like to ask for a definition of "the broader Internet community." Since about 1995, the Internet has been a public access network, so I could interpret the phrase as referring to several hundred million people at this point. Since the IETF is open to all, I'm puzzled how to draw a line around "the broader Internet community" that is meaningfully different from the IETF/IRTF/IAB community but less than the entire on-line population. Now, we need to be careful about how to use that consensus. Several RFC streams serve communities broader than the IETF. Unless we have good reason to do so, we should not step on those communities by overriding their requirements. Indeed, it would be a gross assumption of non-existent authority for the IETF to over-ride the broader Internet community. In the narrow situation of preserving the integrity of the standards process, existing procedures ensure that the standards process is not bypassed by some 3rd party. There is not a problem here, nor a reason for IETF to shut down the very important non-IETF uses of the RFC publication process. Despite the best efforts of new technologies (e.g. combining Google Scholar and institutional technical reports), there are still numerous RFCs each year that are not published by IETF and yet are important for the broader Internet community (which by definition includes, but is not limited to, the IETF). There are roughly 3 categories of such documents: - independent submissions to the RFC Editor relating to technology, research, or other (non-standards) issues. - IRTF submissions to the RFC Editor (as a reminder to newcomers, the IRTF also reports to the IAB, NOT to the IETF). - publications by IAB or ISOC All 3 of those categories are important. Generally speaking, none of those categories are within the purview of the IESG or the IETF -- and NEVER have been historically (with the narrow and important exception, both historically and now, that the IESG has a chance to object to publication of something that is trying to make an
Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All, I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org) While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point of view is interesting for me. I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best help it. IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris). Cheers Brian E Carpenter wrote: | Ran, | | RJ Atkinson wrote: | |> Previously, someone wrote: |> |>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major |>> concern. |>> |>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to |>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. |> |> |> |> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has |> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor. |> |> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by |> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated |> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the |> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those |> funds. [1] | | | I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have | changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the | RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently, | ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and | extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At | some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair | and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these | expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently, | and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the | funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the | Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current* | situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member | contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the | RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget. | | This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the | least. | | With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous | meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is | that representatives there consistently stated support of the | "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC. | Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that | pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to | the creation of IASA. | | - -- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck@sopac.org "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhCTlvnmeYIHZEyARAtTBAJwLUb5A7+mdSjDPGxaVY/9LGSDMlACeIYxh MWceB9CzA8a/Wr6V7oZZSfM= =vYIH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
On 5 Jun 2006, at 02:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Earlier, Ran Atkinson wrote: It has NOT been the case in the past that IETF was the community in control of RFC-Editor. In fact, that would represent a major, and in many people's view highly undesirable, change. Historically, RFC-Editor has served the broader Internet community, including but not limited to the IETF. In fact, the RFC-Editor has existed since the late 1960s, yet the IETF did not even exist until the middle 1980s. Historically, yes. But I think we're discussing the future. Nevertheless, I personally support the existence of an independent submission mechanism, as part of a general pattern of checks and balances. (See below.) However, I'd like to ask for a definition of "the broader Internet community." Since about 1995, the Internet has been a public access network, so I could interpret the phrase as referring to several hundred million people at this point. Since the IETF is open to all, I'm puzzled how to draw a line around "the broader Internet community" that is meaningfully different from the IETF/IRTF/IAB community but less than the entire on-line population. Brian, It is a fair question. Different people might have slightly different formulations, but I don't think that those would be meaningfully different. Here is a starting point for a definition... I think that "the broader Internet community" at least includes folks around the world who are engaged in (non-IAB, non-IRTF, and non-IETF) Internet research and development or are academics otherwise involved with the Internet (e.g. through educating college students). That collective group is not nearly several hundred million people. Further, that group also has a RFC Editor relationship that long predates the existence of IETF/IRTF -- and also has a current active relationship with the RFC-Editor that is separate from the IETF/IRTF. Their needs primarily relate to a substantial and workable mechanism for individual submissions to actually get published in a timely manner. As the IETF has become MUCH more commercially influenced over the past ~10-15 years, the non-product perspectives that such people often bring to the published RFC document series is increasingly important to the overall health of the Internet. IMHO. All, It is not an accident that the criteria for candidates for IAB are different than for IESG. In my experience, and I'm told that this is not a strange perspective, the IAB functions best when IAB has several members who come from the non-commercial R&D/Academic communities -- particularly members who are not particularly involved in IETF standards activities. Those folks can bring a fresh, non-commercial perspective to IAB functions, including but not limited to advice to the IETF/IRTF or input to the RFC-Editor function. Historically, such folks have often done so. As an example, Jon Crowcroft did a wonderful job, yet had not been active in IETF prior to his appointment to the IAB. Of course, he was already quite well known for his Internet research before then. For some years, I've been making this same general observation to the Nominating Committee. Yours, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
Dear Franck, the reference is not ISOC nor the IETF. The reference is the user. Hence, the networking solution people may use on the digital ecosystem they built and own in common. The difficulty is to evaluate from past and present IETF/ISOC contributions their future cons and pros; and the methods for their pros to keep being efficient and their cons to be corrected. This concerns the time proven/dusted approach of their "affinity group" (RFC 3774) - among the billions mentionned by Brian. Can they still deliver? Not easy as those who think "no", or are confused (the users?) are not available for comment, or PR-actionned. Some questions are: - what are the users' needs which are solved, and not solved? - why was the IETF good as solving them, poor at not solving them? - what should be the resulting architecture we should support and how should we support it? - is the IETF/IAB/IESG/IASA/ISOC adapted to produce the deliverables this architecture requires? - what about users' QA? Please reread RFC 3774, 3935, 3968. This kind of self-analysis is impressive. It should help. They all tell what is to be corrected. Starting with the mission and purpose of the IETF. It is not to make the Internet work better in influencing people (where legitimacy, capacity and competence would come from?). But it is to tell people how they can better build, manage and interopate their own system. jfc At 14:34 05/06/2006, Franck Martin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All, I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org) While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point of view is interesting for me. I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best help it. IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris). Cheers Brian E Carpenter wrote: | Ran, | | RJ Atkinson wrote: | |> Previously, someone wrote: |> |>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major |>> concern. |>> |>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to |>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. |> |> |> |> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has |> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor. |> |> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by |> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated |> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the |> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those |> funds. [1] | | | I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have | changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the | RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently, | ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and | extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At | some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair | and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these | expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently, | and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the | funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the | Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current* | situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member | contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the | RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget. | | This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the | least. | | With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous | meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is | that representatives there consistently stated support of the | "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC. | Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that | pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to | the creation of IASA. | | - -- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck@sopac.org "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhCTlvnmeYIHZEyARAtTBAJwLUb5A7+mdSjDPGxaVY/9LGSDMlACeIYxh MWceB9CzA8a/Wr6V7oZZSfM= =vYIH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
Can someone please explain to me how to remove my email address from the ietf mailing list? Can I just go to ietf.org?Phil Maceri 10247 Barlow CrossingPerrysburg, OH 43551Cell: 248-250-1194Home: 586-435-9542 > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:35:41 +0200> To: franck@sopac.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor> > Dear Franck,> the reference is not ISOC nor the IETF. The reference is the user. > Hence, the networking solution people may use on the digital > ecosystem they built and own in common. The difficulty is to evaluate > from past and present IETF/ISOC contributions their future cons and > pros; and the methods for their pros to keep being efficient and > their cons to be corrected. This concerns the time proven/dusted > approach of their "affinity group" (RFC 3774) - among the billions > mentionned by Brian. Can they still deliver? Not easy as those who > think "no", or are confused (the users?) are not available for > comment, or PR-actionned.> > Some questions are:> - what are the users' needs which are solved, and not solved?> - why was the IETF good as solving them, poor at not solving them?> - what should be the resulting architecture we should support and how > should we support it?> - is the IETF/IAB/IESG/IASA/ISOC adapted to produce the deliverables > this architecture requires?> - what about users' QA?> > Please reread RFC 3774, 3935, 3968. This kind of self-analysis is > impressive. It should help. They all tell what is to be corrected. > Starting with the mission and purpose of the IETF. It is not to make > the Internet work better in influencing people (where legitimacy, > capacity and competence would come from?). But it is to tell people > how they can better build, manage and interopate their own system.> jfc> > > > At 14:34 05/06/2006, Franck Martin wrote:> > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-> >Hash: SHA1> >> >All,> >> >I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is> >on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org)> >> >While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still> >consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to> >better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point> >of view is interesting for me.> >> >I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best> >help it.> >> >IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at> >www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris).> >> >Cheers> >> >Brian E Carpenter wrote:> >> >| Ran,> >|> >| RJ Atkinson wrote:> >|> >|> Previously, someone wrote:> >|>> >|>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major> >|>> concern.> >|>>> >|>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to> >|>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.> >|>> >|>> >|>> >|> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has> >|> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor.> >|>> >|> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by> >|> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated> >|> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the> >|> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those> >|> funds. [1]> >|> >|> >| I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have> >| changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the> >| RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently,> >| ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and> >| extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At> >| some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair> >| and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these> >| expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently,> >| and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the> >| funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the> >| Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current*> >| situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member> >| contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the> >| RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget.> >|> >| This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the> >| least.> >|&g
RE: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor
nevermind. figured it out.Phil Maceri 10247 Barlow CrossingPerrysburg, OH 43551Cell: 248-250-1194Home: 586-435-9542 > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:35:41 +0200> To: franck@sopac.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: IETF, IAB, & RFC-Editor> > Dear Franck,> the reference is not ISOC nor the IETF. The reference is the user. > Hence, the networking solution people may use on the digital > ecosystem they built and own in common. The difficulty is to evaluate > from past and present IETF/ISOC contributions their future cons and > pros; and the methods for their pros to keep being efficient and > their cons to be corrected. This concerns the time proven/dusted > approach of their "affinity group" (RFC 3774) - among the billions > mentionned by Brian. Can they still deliver? Not easy as those who > think "no", or are confused (the users?) are not available for > comment, or PR-actionned.> > Some questions are:> - what are the users' needs which are solved, and not solved?> - why was the IETF good as solving them, poor at not solving them?> - what should be the resulting architecture we should support and how > should we support it?> - is the IETF/IAB/IESG/IASA/ISOC adapted to produce the deliverables > this architecture requires?> - what about users' QA?> > Please reread RFC 3774, 3935, 3968. This kind of self-analysis is > impressive. It should help. They all tell what is to be corrected. > Starting with the mission and purpose of the IETF. It is not to make > the Internet work better in influencing people (where legitimacy, > capacity and competence would come from?). But it is to tell people > how they can better build, manage and interopate their own system.> jfc> > > > At 14:34 05/06/2006, Franck Martin wrote:> > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-> >Hash: SHA1> >> >All,> >> >I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is> >on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org)> >> >While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still> >consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to> >better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point> >of view is interesting for me.> >> >I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best> >help it.> >> >IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at> >www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris).> >> >Cheers> >> >Brian E Carpenter wrote:> >> >| Ran,> >|> >| RJ Atkinson wrote:> >|> >|> Previously, someone wrote:> >|>> >|>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major> >|>> concern.> >|>>> >|>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to> >|>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it.> >|>> >|>> >|>> >|> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has> >|> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor.> >|>> >|> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by> >|> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated> >|> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the> >|> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those> >|> funds. [1]> >|> >|> >| I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have> >| changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the> >| RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently,> >| ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and> >| extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At> >| some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair> >| and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these> >| expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently,> >| and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the> >| funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the> >| Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current*> >| situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member> >| contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the> >| RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget.> >|> >| This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the> >| least.> >|> >| With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous> >|
