The following point is against splitting the document:
(a) Less convenient for implementors and those who need to reference the
documents
The following points are in favor of splitting the document:
(a) It can help speed up the "process" by deferring controversial topics
for later
(b) It has the benefit of allowing easier revision in the future
I lack the experience with which to judge whether these benefits should
trump the "single document makes life easy" implementor preference.
This is my first time through the process. My guess is that if
sufficient Elders think this is the way to go I should defer and am
prepared to do so.
I would just like an understanding of one thing first: We've argued in
the past that base can and should describe and provide a basic unit of
utility. Does a split to more documents rob base of that and do we care?
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
