There is a reason it did not result in change... there were cogent
arguments against all proposals that were made.
I thought that some of the arguments were just arguments against
change, and some of the arguments did argue for a change in the
experiment but not that the experiment was bad per se.
How DID it get last called, by the way?
I evaluated the document, the discussion, the feedback from the
stakeholders, and decided that a Last Call would be a good
forcing function to make sure we have a real discussion about it.
I think the idea has promise.
How will a future implementor know which version is normative?
Presumably, the documents will include a note, something like "This
document is part of an experiment described in RFCnnnn; unlike all other
RFCs, the PDF version of this document is normative". Thanks for pointing
out that the experiment description forgot to mention that.
As Joel mentions, this experiment will have a negative impact on
RFC Editor throughput.
I didn't quite buy Joel's argument. If the author can generate ASCII
from his source that matches the RFC-Editor's edited ASCII, and then
generates the PDF from the same source, where does the extra verification
come in?
...and the implications need more mature thought.
If all we get when discussing on the ietf list is knee-jerk reactions,
where is this more mature thought going to come from?
Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf