May I suggest you become familiar with the IETF process before commenting
on it? The RFCs on the standards track are generally field tested before
deployment at Proposed Standard, and the various standardization levels
specifically address the issue you raise.
Read RFC 2026.
At 10:03 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
At 00:37 09/01/04, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:32 PM 1/8/2004, jfcm wrote:
Could it not be useful to have a "List of Comments" (LOC) for each RFC?
Where experience about the RFC reading, testing and implementation could
be listed by the authors (or a successor) from experience and questions
received.
These are usually found in the form of working group archives and
subsequent RFCs that update or obsolete the older ones, especially in the
case of standards track documents. The RFC Editor also keeps a log of
notes on RFCs when asked to.
It's not obvious, at least to me, why a second mechanism is required if
th one that is there works... .
Let say that an RFC is an IETF deliverable. After-delivery
support/maintenance is not a requirment for the delivery to exist but an
usual user expectation. An RFC is a project imposed to the world before it
is validated. A market standard is the desciption of what works and is
adopted. We might find this way a fortunate compromise?
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator
(ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).