[gopher] RFC submission?

[Mateusz Viste]

Hi all,

Here is my personal opinion about this (and it's likely yo be my last 
message on this topic).
I took a quick glance at the piratepad.net/gopher document, and I 
honestly think that it is a) unnecessary and b) quite messy.

a) unnecessary - because I believe that the gopher protocol is very fine 
as it is, and needs no 'improvements'. It's cool, mostly because it's 
dead simple. Would it become any more convoluted, I'd loose interest in 
it. There is maybe one or two things that could be nice to have in 
gopher, but these doesn't require any protocol change (example: 'by 
default' usage of UTF-8 across the gopherspace).

b) quite messy - the document mixes protocol aspects (gopher+ like 
stuff), with client-side pseudo algorithms, with suggestions about how a 
server should be built, and probably other stuff as well (I stopped 
reading at half of the document). An RFC shall describe one thing, and 
do it precisely. The document on piratepad.net looks more like a bag of 
wishes. Also, it describes the usage of some xml-like tags in gopher 
(title), which by itself, is a heresy to me. But anyway, even if said 
document had any resemblance to a serious RFC, I doubt it would be worth 
using IETF's valuable time on this.

To sum up: I think that gopher is mostly fine as it is in it's current 
(RFC 1436) state, with the exception of a few very minor details, that 
IMO do not call for an RFC update anyway. I do not say that the said 
document is worthless - it does address a few good points, but I'd 
better see this incorporated into an updated gopher FAQ, rather than an 
actual RFC.

Mateusz




On 12/30/2014 06:12 PM, Nick Matavka wrote:
> Hello, world!
>
> I think it might soon be time for submitting the updated Gopher RFC.  In
> my belief, it should be within a month at most, as we have a very good
> document authored and edited by some of this mailing list's best minds
> (i.e. Kim Holviala, Matjaz Viste, Dr Kaiser, etc).
>
> But before the RFC is submitted, there are some organisational quirks
> that need to be fulfilled.  I suppose I *could* submit the draft RFC
> (available at http://piratepad.net/gopher) as an independent document,
> but that would only be for informational purposes, rather than putting
> it on the standards track.
>
> I believe that what we currently have is a standard in a formative
> stage.  This is not simply information, or quirky RFC engineering
> humour.  This is the new standard for Next-Generation Gopher (call it
> GopherNG if you like, or Gopher++, I still haven't figured out a decent
> name for it).  If I send this as an independent submission and credit
> everyone, it'll never be anything other than simple "information".
>
> The better way forward, at least in my view, is to submit it through the
> usual channels.  This involves more work, some of which I concede that I
> am not familiar with.  For instance, there will need to be a working
> group; I propose that this mailing list become one. but it needs a
> charter and it needs to be listed on the IETF's page, which is the part
> of the job I'm ignorant of (can't find the link to submit a working
> group for instance).
>
> So I guess you can take this as a request for help.  Has anyone ever
> been through the IETF's Kafka-esque methods of working yet?  Can you
> elucidate them for me?  Should this simply be informational maybe?
>
> Cordially yours,
> N. Edward Matavka