Maybe as a required appendix to RFCs? Of course, I can just see the new
flame wars over what is and isn't included in the "historical
[hysterical?] synopsis"....
How about: we require that each argument to the list be expressed in
some fixed syntax (Prolog, anyone?) and the listserver scans each
submission. If your argument has been parsed before, your submission
goes in the bit bucket. (Science fiction scenario: the listserver,
being privy to months and years of logically-formatted arguments,
develops consciousness. Imagine just what a nasty-tempered machine it
would be!) -- Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking
[mailto:Radia(_dot_)Perlman(_at_)Sun(_dot_)COM]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:48 PM
To: vjs(_at_)CALCITE(_dot_)RHYOLITE(_dot_)COM; moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: I-D archives available anywhere?
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> Let's keep our flame wars straight. This is the scheduled
start
> of the latest episode of "I-D's Should Not Be Expired."
maybe we need a FAC (Frequently Argued Controversies) file for
the
IETF list. unlike an FAQ file which answers questions, an FAC
file
would summarize each side of each argument. that way, we
wouldn't
need to re-iterate those positions each time the topic came back
up - we could simply say "see [url]".
Maybe you're joking, but I think it's an excellent idea. Not just for
flame-wars that periodically erupt, but for technical specs there should
be "these were the issues, these were the arguments on each side, this
is why we decided this". And not just "see the email archives for the
last 10 years", but having someone carefully extract the content and
summarize it succinctly. This comes up all the time. "Why do we have
that parameter there?" "I don't know...someone claimed it was needed for
something so we better not touch it."
Radia