Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the ID_Checklist
too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our processes
are described in formally approved BCP documents.
Bert,
I am trying to distinguish between what the Checklist "is intended to be" from
the competing views of what it actually is, as discussed in this thread 8-11
July. That thread made clear that a variety of serious and thoughtful people
have very different views on the actuality.
This sort of debate is never resolved by abstract exchanges. It needs hard data.
I think your previous note correctly listed what the document was (and probably
is) *intended* to be. I think the thread made clear there is a strong case that
the document has become more than that. I think it also made clear that the
basis for its becoming more is fuzzy.
So my suggestion is not seeking to directly resolve the matter, but rather to
provide a tool for discussion. Simply put, it adds an audit trail to the
document's content that should help folks by providing some relatively objective
information that makes clear what is and is not based on rules defined elsewhere.
Hence, I am hoping that detailed attention to John's note following-up my own
suggestion comes later, since I read it as possibly seeking to resolve things
directly. More probably, he was merely trying to help make the case for why the
document needs substantiation of its particulars.
I suggested that you perform the audit exercise partly because you are the one
modifying the document and partly because you are friendly to the document's
current form.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf