----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>
To: "Ted Hardie" <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55 AM
On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
but it means we are changing out a standard that doesn't accurately reflect
what we do now for one that doesn't accurately reflect what we will do.
Yup. And IMO we're better off with the old incorrect statement than a new one.
At least with the current situation a great many people know how things work.
<tp>
Yes, even. The purchasers, RFPers and like that I have worked with just about
understand the difference between an I-D and an RFC, but have no concept of the
classifications used inside the IETF (PS, DS, IS) so I cannot see any
comprehension of this new scheme making it into the world at large for a long
time. We may not be following RFC2026 but at least there is some understanding
of what we are doing.
Tom Petch
</tp>
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf