Hi Bob,
On 2006-04-11 19:58 Bob Braden said the following:
> *> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eronen-rfc-selective-ex
>
> That document is largely based on fallacies about the publication of
> RFCs. Not that this seems to matter.
First, this document has not been offered for discussion on this list, and
it is only indirectly relevant to the current discussion. I expect it to
be discussed in detail only at such a time when the prerequisites for
experiments like this are in place.
However, if you want to comment on the content of this document, I think it
would be more productive if you were to point out incorrect facts and suggest
alternative changes than to offer such generalisations as "That document is
largely based on fallacies ...".
Of course, there are darn few productive ways to respond to generalisations
about what a document is based on.
Let me just say that this document is an attempt at proposing one of several
possible ways of alleviating a situation which has frustrated a lot of people
for a bit too long. The authors don't assume that the result is guaranteed
good. But in the face of a frustrating situation we found it better to offer
concrete specific proposals for change than to offer only generalisations
about how bad things are.
We expect the document to be discussed on its merits at the proper time and
in the proper venue. Even in the case that it is found to make sense to run
such
an experiment, it might still turn out that the outcome of the experiment is
unsatisfactory. That is a valid outcome - but discarding a document without
actually inspecting its content and discussing its merits specifically is
not, in my book, a valid one.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
