[rfc-i] Re: Status of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis?
falk at ISI.EDU
Thu Jul 29 06:42:16 PDT 2004
[This message was wedged in the list server, sorry about the delay.
On Jun 11, 2004, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:13:07 -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC
> <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't get your point. What is wrong with a living
>>> document as a bridge.
>> In the IETF, this is usually considered a Bad Thing. If
>> something is ready to become an RFC, it should become an RFC.
>> Otherwise, people will assume that the "living document" is
>> stable, and if it changes later, there will be ugly surprises.
> Paul, I'm not wild about the current state of things either, nor
> am I wild about the example I'm about to cite, but I think it is
> important to recognize the resource and priority issues that Bob
> I note that 1id-guidelines.txt and the notorious and perhaps
> unlamented "id-nits" documents where both available online only,
> that the latter was often enforced as a set of binding rules by
> the IESG and the former was often (albeit sporadically and
> inconsistently) enforced by the secretariat. I don't remember
> a lot of protests about that situation (except from myself),
> evidence of serious harm caused by it, or people using it as a
> precedent. The RFC Editor at least aspires to keeping a good
> balance between consistency and flexibility.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest