RFC submission: a case study

19960226 ``Let me get this straight,'' says Valdis Kletnieks. ``If it doesn't come in via the IESG, it can sit in the repository for 2 weeks, unannounced, and become an RFC no matter what the public outcry is?''

``Absolutely,'' says Frank Kastenholz. ``We're not in the business of saying what can and can not be published.''

``'Twas ever thus,'' says Fred Bohle. ``Anyone can create an RFC, and Jon will post it.''

``That's the way it has always been,'' says Ned Freed.

19960314 I submit my 2-page netstrings spec as an Informational RFC. I ask the RFC editors what I have to do under the new I-D policy. ``It'd be good if we could get these all done before the end of March,'' I say, taking Kastenholz at his word.

19960318 Joyce Reynolds writes back. ``We are backed up right now... We'll get to your query and submissions as soon as we can.''

19960401 Reynolds tells me that the next step is I-D posting, and that the step after that is IESG review. ``The IESG normally takes two weeks to decide these things.''

I write back, asking again what I have to do for the I-D. Reynolds sends me the I-D guidelines.

19960406 My draft is posted as an I-D. I ask the RFC editors to start the IESG review.

19960408 Reynolds writes back: ``Okay. No problem.''

19960426 No news. I ask if we can proceed with the RFC publication.

19960506 No response. I ask for a status report.

19960516 Still no response. I ask for a status report.

19960517 Reynolds tells me that she has sent the document to IESG, and that they are meeting ``next week.''

19960528 ``Any suggestions from IESG?'' I ask. ``If not, are we ready?''

19960531 Reynolds tells me that, on 19960529, the IESG requested an extension on my draft. I write back, asking why and for how long; Reynolds forwards my message to the IESG.

19960618 Keith Moore tells me that, on 19960611, the IESG made its recommendation to the RFC editors: ``The IESG has no problem with the publication of [the netstrings spec] as an Informational document.''

19960624 I write to the RFC editors, asking about the netstrings status. ``Is [publication] okay with you?'' I ask. ``If so, can you let me know what RFC number to put into that document?''

19960727 No response. ``Are you there?'' I ask.

19960729 Reynolds writes back. ``We do plan on getting back to work on RFC publication starting this week,'' she says. ``I will be sure that we communicate with you about your document once we get to it and process it. Thanks for the ping.''

19970720 A year has passed. No news from the RFC editors. I send e-mail withdrawing my submission and asking for an acknowledgment.

19970809 No response. I send another message.

19970818 Mary Kennedy asks what I am referring to. ``I can not find a message from you,'' she says. I write back, explaining that I am withdrawing my submission.

19971120 rfc-ed@isi.edu (no name and no signature) says ``I am currently working on some of your RFC-to-be documents'' and asks for various information. I send e-mail explaining that I withdrew my submission months ago, and once again asking for an acknowledgment. I finally receive an acknowledgment: ``We have withdrawn them.''

I submitted nine RFCs between 1989 and 1996. All of them were outside the IETF WG process. All of them were subjected to massive delays; the netstrings spec is the most blatant example. Only one of them was published. It was heavily edited at the last minute, without my knowledge or consent. I am severely disappointed in the result.

Through several months of 1996, Reynolds kept telling me how busy she was. At one point I tried to set up a phone conversation; she didn't respond. Meanwhile, by all accounts, she was responding snappily to everyone else. Most RFCs are published within a few weeks of submission.

It's well known that the IETF is no longer the primary source of progress in Internet engineering. The only respectable activity left for the IAB, IESG, and IETF is to report what others have done. So I don't find it at all surprising that the IAB and IESG claim to have an open document series. Unfortunately, the claim is a lie.