On 2/23/26 06:12, Lars Eggert wrote:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. This document intends to put an enormous burden on all
IETF-stream authors of "technical documents" (i.e., most of them) to add a
mandatory new section to their documents. It is IMO on this document and the WG that
originates it to justify why this IETF-wide burden is warranted. Evidence is not a
distraction. If you're worried about staleness, make it an appendix. Why do we need this
new section and why do we need it now?
I wish to support this statement. I made similar comments in other
circumstances including when this was covered in prior routing area
meetings.
The contents of the draft are a valuable set of observations worthy of
use when building operational considerations in documents that require
them. However, it leans rather more to "you touched something, now
include this giant block of text and comment on why things are, or are
not, needed".
My concerns would be alleviated by not having this as a "requirement".
My concerns are significantly motivated by the fact that every time a
"patch" RFC for a given subject I work on hits the IESG there's a desire
to relitigate the presence or absence of such considerations in the
particular patch document, or the thoroughness or lack thereof in the
base document that is being augmented and has been deployed for years.
-- Jeff (thoroughly sick of mandatory boilerplate at the day job already)
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
