Hi Paul,
I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other documents ...
The importance of having documents is part of the IETF "working mode". Is
our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic.
I guess is not my final decision if it will become and RFC or not, but it
will not be fair not following the same path for this document as for many
others.
That said, the original idea has been, since I was pointed out for editing
this document, to follow exactly the same process as with many other
documents, technical and administrative.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800
Para: Richard Shockey <richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us>, IETF list
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote:
It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over
substance.
Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf