Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2006 06:06:08 PM -0400 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
You are correct. I did not address that issue, partially
because, personally, I do not consider it very important. While
documenting what we are doing would be nice, I don't believe the
community is completely happy with what we are doing and, hence,
that energy would be better spent figuring out how to move
forward.
I think that if people are interested in documenting what we are
currently doing, the most effective way to do that is for someone to
write one or more informational, descriptive internet-drafts that
attempt to document the current state of affairs, and then ask for input
on them. The author(s) of such documents should feel free to reject
input suggesting that the process should be changed as out of scope.
I have written draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02.txt. There's a
convenient version at
http://www.geocities.com/be1carpenter/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02.html
I hereby ask for input on it.
Brian
I think that if someone had the desire and energy to do this work, it
could be done relatively easily and without much controversy, provided
it was understood to be non-normative in nature. I don't consider such
an effort useful enough to engage in it myself, or to actively encourage
someone else to do so. But I certainly won't _discourage_ someone who's
interested in spending time on such an effort.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf