[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 13 13:03:55 PST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2009-01-14 08:21, Joe Touch wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Hi, all,
>> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like algorithmically
>> specified language.
> Nevertheless, it's the only solution that scales, given the workload
> of everyone involved. After all, there's nothing (I hope) that
> forbids deviation from the specified language when it's obviously
I'm just saying that the doc should list the possibilities, not the
algorithms. There aren't that many possibilities.
> I don't want to prolong the argument, but:
>> IRTF non-consensus:
>> This document is a product of the Internet Research
>> Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
>> related research and development activities. These results
>> might not be suitable for deployment.
>> ++This RFC represents the individual
>> opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
>> Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).++
>> ++ this paragraph seems unnecessary; we don't do this for IETF docs that
>> aren't group consensus.
> There shouldn't be *any* IETF stream documents that lack consensus that
> they are OK to publish. But even in the IETF, we've used equivalent
> formulations, e.g. RFC3248, when there's consensus to publish but
> not consensus on the contents.
> In the IRTF this variant is essential. IRTF groups are *not* automatically
> obliged to reach consensus, and factions within a research group need to be
> able to publish contended research results.
Why are those considered IRTF/IETF stream documents, rather than
I.e., I'm not arguing that there are no such documents, just that if
there's no consensus what's the value of "this is part of a stream" anymore?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest