Hi John, Harald,
On Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
Mark Smith
<ietf(_at_)130c04165a5b40404e4440445758487a(_dot_)nosense(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mis
sion-01.txt
I haven't been all that involved in the IETF to have a strong
opinion on the draft. That being said, it sounds good.
Harald (et al) should be commended for this work.
Completely agree.
Regarding deleting the appendix, I'd suggest not doing so, as
I think it fits the "Relevant" clause, namely :
"Note that it does not mean "correct" or "positive" - a
report of an experiment that failed, or a specification that
clearly says why you should not use it in a given situation,
can be highly relevant - for deciding what NOT to do."
I think including the possible mission statements that
weren't adequate will help further clarify the one that is.
I must disagree with Mark and agree with Harald. Inclusion
of
Appendix A in _this_ document would detract from the sense of
closure, and give the impresssion that the issues it mentions
are still open.
If the appendix is retained, and it isn't too much effort,
expanded explanations of why the other mission statement
candidates weren't satisfactory or adequate may be of some
value.
I'd be happy to see a separate document describing the
process of
reaching this statement of mission.
I'd be happy with this approach. I think sometimes preserving the
"whys" can be as useful as the "whats". ("Why ?" is one of my
favourite questions :-) )
Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf