On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
which changes you'd like to see so I'll just have to ask "send text" and
I'll check it out.
IMO, the major doc focus issues are more important and need to be
resolved before it would be useful to contribute text, since the latter
assumes that such pointwise patches would be productive, and I don't yet
see that.
Ok, I think your main argument against the current structure is:
Documenting existing practice and pointing out the violation as a
side-issue isn't acceptable to me because it ends up
meaning that this doc is a snapshot of current practice, which I
don't think is appropriate for an RFC. IMO, the RFC should make a
statement that this is either OK and the spec should be changed or
that it's not OK and the implementations should be fixed.
I do not think this is an appropriate as a blocking reason for a
document, but everyone is entitles to an opinion. If that didn't
capture your objection well enough, I'd encourage you to write a short
summary, so that other folks can judge by themselves.
As for the document, I'm shipping off -05 with the small mods I've
made based on your (and others') input and we'll see how it turns out.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
