In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John C Klensin writes:
>Brian,
>
>We agree about the desirability of making sure than some things
>are explicitly documented and explicitly part of what gets
>reviewed. But I continue to believe, as I have believed for
>years, that adding more and more mandatory material to RFCs or
>I-Ds is not the best solution to that particular problem.
>
>From where I sat, the problem was trying to ensure that a WG thought
about an issue. Neither mandatory material nor checkoff boxes
accomplish that, but I think the former is often more useful because
material in an I-D is visible to the entire WG.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
