Hi Joel, Thanks for your time.
> The introduction describes RFC1264 as requiring at least one > implementation. The general requirement in RFC 1264 is multiple > implementations, at least two independent. While it is a minor issue, > this document should characterize RFC 1264 more carefully. I'm not opposed to the change you suggest but I quote from section 4.0 of RFC 1264 | 4) One or more implementations must exist. > In the Alternative Formats section, it strikes me that there is an > alternative that is sometimes useful that is de-emphasised by the text > as written. If there has been significant insight gained from the > implementations, that may be useful to capture in a longer-lived > context. In that case, an RFC describing implementation may still be > useful. I would appreciate it if the authors would consider adding a > short paragraph to this effect. Oh, it was certainly not our intention to persuade people not to add documentation about implementations. I don't think the current text de-emphasises anything (unless you consider that not talking about something is de-emphasis). It would not hurt us to note how implementation reports have often been written and how the IESG currently recommends that they are written. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
