> Let's keep our flame wars straight. This is the scheduled start > of the latest episode of "I-D's Should Not Be Expired." maybe we need a FAC (Frequently Argued Controversies) file for the IETF list. unlike an FAQ file which answers questions, an FAC file would summarize each side of each argument. that way, we wouldn't need to re-iterate those positions each time the topic came back up - we could simply say "see [url]". to reopen an old discussion someone would then have to argue convincingly that there was a new angle or potential compromise not seen before, or that the conditions had changed rendering part of the old argument invalid or moot. Ketih
- I-D archives available anywhe... Pekka Savola
- Re: I-D archives availab... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: I-D archives availab... Scott Bradner
- Re: I-D archives availab... Vernon Schryver
- Re: I-D archives ava... Ofer Inbar
- Re: I-D archives ava... Keith Moore
- Re: I-D archives... grenville armitage
- Re: I-D archives... Jiwoong Lee
- Re: I-D archives... Peter Deutsch
- Re: I-D archives availab... Robert G. Ferrell
- Re: I-D archives availab... Robert G. Ferrell
- Re: I-D archives availab... Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking
- Re: I-D archives ava... vint cerf
- Re: I-D archives... Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim
- Re: I-D archives availab... James P. Salsman
- RE: I-D archives availab... Ian King
