I'm with Radia - after 30 years in this game the same arguments and problems are
sometimes unearthed either by newbies or by a new problem that is isomorphic to
an old one.
vint
At 05:47 PM 6/18/2001 -0400, Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking wrote:
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > 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]".
>
>Maybe you're joking, but I think it's an excellent idea. Not just for
>flame-wars that periodically erupt, but for technical specs there should
>be "these were the issues, these were the arguments on each side, this
>is why we decided this". And not just "see the email archives for the
>last 10 years", but having someone carefully extract the content
>and summarize it succinctly. This comes up all the time. "Why do
>we have that parameter there?" "I don't know...someone claimed it
>was needed for something so we better not touch it."
>
>Radia
