"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
It's hitting a moving target :-(
I continue to explain myself until my mistakes become clear, that's
why I'm often wrong.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:54:17 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
The IMPLEMENTATION section of the RFC is supposed to be mandatory, but
there have been an awful lot of RFCs posted that have missing or
evasive IMPLEMENTATION sections. I found more than 39% of all RFCs
have a missing or incomplete
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:34:10PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
The IMPLEMENTATION section of the RFC is supposed to be mandatory, but
there have been an awful lot of RFCs posted that have missing or
evasive IMPLEMENTATION sections.
Well, I have to counter
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:29:33PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
Any requirements on how solid an implementation section should be
should be left to the working group chairs.
Sorry, I don't understand this. What is the WGC's role here?
My english native language is? :-)
I meant to
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:29:33PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
Any requirements on how solid an implementation section should be
should be left to the working group chairs.
Sorry, I don't understand this. What is the WGC's role here?
My english native language is? :-)
I
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:04:03PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
Suppose a WGC establishes a requirement for the solidity of the
implementation section, and receives an RFC that does not meet the
requirements. What then?
If the WGC chair sets forth explicit requirements as to what
The IMPLEMENTATION section of the RFC is supposed to be mandatory, but
there have been an awful lot of RFCs posted that have missing or
evasive IMPLEMENTATION sections. I found more than 39% of all RFCs
have a missing or incomplete implementation section.
Here are the results of my survey.
These 13 ( 8%) had very brief IMPLEMENTATION sections that
didn't contain any substantive discussion.
These 21 (13%) contained remarks about the author's ignorance.
These 15 ( 9%) had no IMPLEMENTATION section at all.
The distinction between
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 06:26:29PM -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I'd like to amend my proposal. Suppose that the librarian *suggests*
that RFC authors contact the WG chair when they submit RFCs that omit
the implementation section? That way nobody is forced to do anything,
and many
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFCs: 21 26 62 84 88 110 112 131 136 137 140 149 162 165 166
These 15 ( 9%) had no IMPLEMENTATION section at all. I was
surprised that the librarian had even accepted these, since
10 matches
Mail list logo
