hello john.
On 2016-09-15 09:37, John C Klensin wrote:
Independent of where it is discussed (as
long as it is on a public list), this I-D would be, at least
IMO, a much more satisfactory basis for discussion if it
demonstrated more convincingly that the author was aware of
those earlier discussions and had considered them, rather than
assuming (or appearing to assume) that no one had thought about
these topics.
it was not my intention to ignore or belittle previous discussions. it
just occurred to me as a frequent reader of RFCs that there is a large
variation in quality how updates are documented. the idea was that some
simple documentation guidelines might help to improve that, without
necessarily being hard definitions on what exactly updates are, and how
exactly they have to be documented.
i'd be more than happy to include these earlier discussions, but i am
afraid if that involves going through a long list of mail archives, this
simply is beyond the time commitment i can reasonably make. i'd be more
than happy to have somebody co-authoring and filling in those gaps, but
that of course assumes that somebody else would be willing to put in the
effort of writing up this history.
thanks and cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:erik(_dot_)wilde(_at_)dret(_dot_)net |
| http://dret.net/netdret |
| http://twitter.com/dret |