-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote: > >>> which changes you'd like to see so I'll just have to ask "send text" and >>> I'll check it out. >> >> >> IMO, the major doc focus issues are more important and need to be >> resolved before it would be useful to contribute text, since the latter >> assumes that such pointwise patches would be productive, and I don't yet >> see that. > > Ok, I think your main argument against the current structure is: > > Documenting existing practice and pointing out the violation as a > side-issue isn't acceptable to me because it ends up > meaning that this doc is a snapshot of current practice, which I > don't think is appropriate for an RFC. IMO, the RFC should make a > statement that this is either OK and the spec should be changed or > that it's not OK and the implementations should be fixed. > > I do not think this is an appropriate as a blocking reason for a > document I-D aren't on a default path to RFC that is 'blocked'. They're on a default path to disappear in 6 months; there needs to be a *reason* to move to RFC. There have been cases where there are significant reasons to snapshot existing practice, so I'm not saying that "no RFCs are just ephemeral snapshots". But the bar ought to be high, and I think that most of the key points in this doc, except the fact that people break specs in ways that we're not intending to endorse, have been made in other docs. That's why I think the other reasons ought to apply (change the spec or denounce the practice). So, yes, this is my position. And yes, it's one person's opinion. I hope others will consider whether and why this doc should move forward, not whether it should not, however. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDRBhYE5f5cImnZrsRAk/OAKD7B8ZpKvg+0lvvpNVdkneWKnnOFwCg4Hm9 Hmgv394uoK+C+90kH41NSho= =iKEI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
