Summary Of The Communication Records in Chronological Order

All the communication between the Authors, the RFC Editor and the IESG were in the form of email exchanges. There were no phone calls or face-to-face conversations of any sort.

The email exchanges are factually summarized below and reference to the actual email is included.

Jan 11, 97 - Authors To RFC-Editor:

Mark Taylor (then of AT&T) submitted the ESRO protocol for publication as an Informational RFC.
(Message-Id: <32D7FFCA@wddmssmtp.nwest.airdata.com>)

Jan 15, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor:

Shortly after that (on 1/15/97) I incorporated IANA's port assignment for the ESRO protocol and resubmitted it to the RFC-Editor.
(Message-Id: <199701160714.XAA29795@jamshid.neda.com>)

Jan 23, 97 - RFC-Editor To Authors:

On January 23rd, the RFC editor acknowledged receipt and placed it in the publication queue and forwarded it to the IESG/IETF for their review.
(Message-Id: <199701231743.AA10376@zen.isi.edu>)

Jan 29, 97 - RFC-Editor To IETF-Announce:

The ESRO protocol was put in the internet drafts directory on January 29th.
(Message-Id: <9701300942.aa02647@ietf.org>)

March 31, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor:

On March 31st I checked on the current status of this RFC and expressed our desire to see it published soon.
(<199704010128.RAA26066@jamshid.neda.com>)

April 3, 97 - RFC-Editor To Authors:

On April 3th we were told that The IESG had requested that the ESRO document not be published at this time and that they would be in contact with us after their meeting that coming week in Memphis.
(Message-Id: <199704032357.AA17887@zephyr.isi.edu>)

April 3, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor:

I immediately replied requesting an explanation of this delay and the name of the relevant IESG contact person. I again offered to discuss and respond to questions/comments regarding the ESRO protocol.
(Message-Id: <199704040100.RAA07041@jamshid.neda.com>)

At that time our only contact point was the RFC Editor. The Editor neglected to reply to that message. Those questions remain unanswered even today. Had the RFC Editor responded to that message in April, we would have saved a lot of time. The above instance alone justifies my fair use of the word "negligently" with respect to the RFC Editor.

July 28, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor:

Having not heard from the RFC Editor since April 3rd (nearly 4 months), I prepared a detailed message which explained that the RFC Editor and IESG's treatment of this RFC is totally unreasonable.
(Message-Id: <199707290658.XAA28413@jamshid.neda.com>)

July 28, 97 - RFC-Editor To Steve Coya:

The RFC Editor (Mary Kennedy) forwarded my message to Steve Coya.
(Message-Id: <199707291539.AA11953@zephyr.isi.edu>)

August 4, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To RFC-Editor and Steve Coya:

At that time (6 months after initial submission and a week after my previous detailed request for explanation) Steve Coya and the IESG had still not responded to ANY of our messages and requests.

Our repeated requests for an explanation kept being ignored. The IESG's actions up to that point combined with their dictatorial attitude and arrogance at that point, at a minimum, justifies my use of the words "negligent" and "irresponsible".
(Message-Id: <199708041804.LAA07856@rostam.neda.com>)

August 4, 97 - Steve Coya to Authors:

After more than 6 months, this is the first time that anyone at the IESG has communicated with us. In that message, Steve Coya tells us that the IESG requested that the document not be published. This is a clear violation of the procedures of BCP-9. No where in RFC 2026 is the IESG given the authority to stop the publication of a non IETF Informational RFC. Now, add to that the level of arrogance that says IESG can ignore the Authors' inquiries for 6 months and provide no explanation what-so-ever to why IESG has prevented the publication of the RFC. Then add to it, that later it becomes clear that Steve Coya was just wrong.
(Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.96.970804141858.-301315F-100000@dell06.cnri.reston.va.us>)

August 4, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner tells us that it appears that it might be worth while to issue an IETF last call on it and advance it as a proposed standard! Obviously that was contradictory to what Steve Coya had said earlier that same day.
(Message-Id: <199708041935.PAA05510@newdev.harvard.edu>)

August 4, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I re-iterate the sense of urgency here.

August 6, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I check on status of progress and mention that a lot has gone wrong so far and that is why we are impatient.

August 6, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner tells me that no abuse should be directed towards the RFC Editor.
(Message-Id: <199708061908.PAA09003@newdev.harvard.edu>)

August 7, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I explain that my use of the words "irresponsibly and negligently" do not constitute abuse towards the RFC Editor. And I justify them again.
(Message-Id: <199708071844.LAA12806@rostam.neda.com>)

August 7, 97 - Scott Bradner to Mohsen BANAN:

Scott Bradner in a message only to me suggests that if I can't see that the tone of my messages are abusive I should talk to a friend.
(Message-Id: <199708071924.PAA10978@newdev.harvard.edu>)

I do not consider this a personal or private message. On a personal level, I wish to have no relationship what-so-ever with anyone on the IESG. I simply want them to fulfill their particular responsibilities with respect to facilitation of publication of my Informational RFCs.

The key point not to be missed here is that if the IESG has been doing its job, we would not be discussing the tone of my messages.

I did not dignify that message with a response.

August 7, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner tell us that ex-transport co-AD feels that this ID represents a significant technical contribution and feels that it should be advanced on the IETF standards track.
(Message-Id: <199708071943.PAA11036@newdev.harvard.edu>)

Scott Bradner asks us to choose between the Informational RFC publication route or the Proposed Standard route.

August 8, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

The Authors choose the Informational RFC route because the urgency for publication in this case outweighs our interest in getting this document on the standards track.
(Message-Id: <199708081853.LAA14067@rostam.neda.com>)

August 8, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner asks: What is causing this feeling of urgency?
(Message-Id: <199708082046.QAA01197@newdev.harvard.edu>)

August 8, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I explain.
(Message-Id: <199708082219.PAA14258@rostam.neda.com>)

August 17, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner informs us of his recommendation of ESRO for publication and that he hopes we will put this specification on standards track when it is ready.
(Message-Id: <199708180051.UAA08685@newdev.harvard.edu>)

August 17, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I thanked him and said that I will.
(Message-Id: <199708180434.VAA26606@rostam.neda.com>)

August 18, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner forwards a technical comment from Harald Alvestrand to the Authors. This is the *ONLY* technical comment that we ever received from the IESG or the RFC Editor.
(Message-Id: <199708181217.IAA09055@newdev.harvard.edu>)

August 18, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I respond to that technical comment.
(Message-Id: <199708181850.LAA27366@rostam.neda.com>)

August 28, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I explicitly ask that he keeps me posted on his communications with the RFC Editor related to this RFC.
(Message-Id: <199708282146.OAA11605@rostam.neda.com>)

If there was to be an IESG Note, I wanted to have a chance and see it before publication.

August 28, 97 - Scott Bradner to Authors:

Scott Bradner informs us that he publication was approved by the IESG. But does not mention anything about the IESG note.
(Message-Id: <199708282229.SAA23730@newdev.harvard.edu>)

September 9, 97 - Mohsen BANAN To Scott Bradner:

I ask about the expected publication date.

September 9, 97 - RFC Editor to IETF-Announce:

The RFC Editor announces publication of RFC-2188.

The text of RFC-2188 is materially same as what we submitted to the RFC Editor on Jan 15, 1997, with the exception of the IESG note.

To our surprise we discovered the following IESG note in our RFC.

IESG Note

   This protocol has not had the benefit of IETF Working Group review,
   but a cursory examination reveals several issues which may be
   significant issues for scalability.  A site considering deployment
   should conduct a careful analysis to ensure they understand the
   potential impacts.

A few key points about this IESG Note:

• The Authors were never given a chance to know about any of the issues that the note implies, even-though I had explicitly asked to be informed of communications related to this RFC.

• After delaying the publication for 8 months, why is the IESG Note based on "a cursory examination".

• If that IESG Note is true, then why were the Authors not given a chance to know about them and fix them?

• If that IESG Note is true, then why did the Area Director want to put it on the Standards Track and issue a Last Call for it?

• The IESG note is so vague that up until recently I thought that it was about the wrong perception of limitations of Service Access Points - which was the ONLY technical issue that was ever discussed with the Authors. How can the IESG expect that such an unsubstantiated vague comment be of use to anyone? The best I can gather, this appears to have just been a "power trip" by an out of control IESG.

• I am not saying that RFC-2188 is perfect and that no IESG note should have ever been put in it. I am saying that the IESG note that was put in there was done the wrong way and is of little use, if any.

If any of my employees were to ever be responsible for a small fraction of the types of arrogance, negligence and mistakes that were commited during the process of publication of RFC-2188, I would fire or demote them immediately.

But, the IESG is a collection of volunteers which answers to no one.

Unless we can find a way to deal with problems like this and fix them, I am afraid that arrogance, negligence, irresponsibility and incompetence will be institutionalized inside of the IESG.