On Feb 16, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 to Randy's observation. > > It's almost as if we value our own opinions more than we value running code...
I suggest posting links to the mailing list archives where someone suggests that the document be published as *only* an informational RFC. Failing that, publicly withdrawing this claim. The only record of someone wanting *only* an informational RFC was me at the mic in Prague. Discussions since then have convinced me to change my mind. Which I've stated publicly, for anyone who cares to read my messages. The discussions in the last month have been around publishing (a) just a standards track RFC, or (b) a standards track RFC and an informational RFC. I'm still surprised at the level of vitriol, contradictory logic, and just plain false statements being made here. I find such "arguments" entirely unconvincing. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
