How many RFCs describe things that are implemented?
How many RFCs describe things that are deployed?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Dave Cridland [dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net]
Sent: 11 June 2013 12:36
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Discussion
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com<mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG
member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
I think this is, in part, due to the question asked.
The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those reading
it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for.
Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements, in particular the
questionnaire at the end. Note that in this thread, almost all respondents are
actually filling it in, and further note that at least some of those are
experienced IETF participants, suggesting that even the jaded IETF folk might
join in.
http://jabber.996255.n3.nabble.com/LAST-CALL-XEP-0308-Last-Message-Correction-td14079.html
I'd suggest that putting together a set of five questions you're hoping to have
answered would be sensible and useful.
Perhaps:
1) Do you believe this document is needed?
2) Is the document ready for publication as-is?
3) Are you intending to, or have you already, implemented and/or deployed this
specification?
4) Does the document adequately explain the risks involved in implementing
and/or deploying this specification?
5) Is the document sufficiently clear to allow unambiguous understanding of how
to implement and/or deploy the specification?
Dave.