ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents)

2004-03-28 14:47:51
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] 
On
|> Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
|> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:38 PM
|> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
|> Cc: IETF Discussion
|> Subject: Re: Naming crap (Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents)
|>
|> On 27-mrt-04, at 18:36, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
|>
|> > If we are to change the process that produces this stuff,
|> we HAVE to
|> > understand what the reasons are that reasonable, competent people
|> > produce things that are sub-par, broken or "crap". And
|> IMHO, we can't
|> > do that without saying what these unacceptable results of
|> the process
|> > are.
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> > I don't think anonymous, class-based criticism will get us much
|> > further. We need to be specific about what our problems are.
|>
|> To me it seems that the IETF can't make up its mind: are
|> RFCs just drafts that don't expire, or are they hugely
|> important documents that must be absolutely perfect before
|> they are published?
|>
|> The problem is version control. We're engineers. That means
|> we are, more so than mere mortals, doomed never to get
|> anything right the first time out. However, the RFC
|> publishing model doesn't really allow for incremental
|> changes: you have to write a completely new RFC, which then
|> gets a new number that has no relation to the original RFC.
|>
|> What we need is a way to add information to RFCs whithout
|> the need to rewrite the original RFC or make the new
|> information a full-blown RFC of its own.

Personally and from observation it would appear RFCs are stand alone
documents that do not get revised.  They get superseded by new RFCs covering
the same topic.  Perhaps the way to approach this particular issue is to
provide better navigation aids through the various RFCs so that it is easier
for users to find all the related documents showing the relationship
(timeline and validity) between the documents.  A more involved and
comprehensive document management system.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>