> > These 13 ( 8%) had very brief IMPLEMENTATION sections that
> > didn't contain any substantive discussion.
> > These 21 (13%) contained remarks about the author's ignorance.
> > These 15 ( 9%) had no IMPLEMENTATION section at all.
> The distinction between these three cases is arbitrary and trivial,
> being as they are more a reflection of the authors' tastes.
No, that is not true. The distinction between the first two groups is
trivial. The third group is a group of RFCs that were published even
though the supposedly required section was omitted.
I mentioned the remarks about the authors' ignorance because it seemed
to me that these were people who might have appreciated being hooked
up with someone who could help make their RFCs stronger.
> I wish you had applied the standard more evenly; imho, 97 & 100 had
> good reasons for their cursory treatments of implementation.
Sorry. I should have put in a disclaimer that I did the survey very
quickly and I didn't try to be consistent. The important point of the
survey was that many RFCs that should have implementation sections
lack them. The details about why the section was omitted are there
mostly to pander to curiosity.
I'd like to amend my proposal. Suppose that the librarian *suggests*
that RFC authors contact the WG chair when they submit RFCs that omit
the implementation section? That way nobody is forced to do anything,
and many people might be grateful for the service.