paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Nov 13 01:59:18 PST 2010
At 9:34 PM -0500 11/10/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>1. Comments about the draft
>I think almost all of the historical claims in this draft could be
>removed, and the draft would be better for it. I have to agree with
>some others that expansive claims such as
> The RFC Series is the Internet technical community's official medium,
> through which it communicates with itself and the rest of the world.
> 6,000 RFCs since 1969 comprise one of the most extensive and
> influential technical series in history. Without openly available
> RFCs, the Internet could not have been built, could not operate, and
> could not continue its remarkable advance.
>are at least distracting and at worst nonsense. (Any time I see a
>counterfactual impossibility claim, for instance, I immediately want
>to make up the world in which it is false.) Cut it. If you think you
>need background, it is enough to provide a list of previous RFCs on
>the topic, that the hiring process that came out of them didn't work
>as planned, and that the current text provides a proposal for how to
>alter RFC 5620 so that the next attempt to hire someone will succeed.
>As nearly as I can tell, that's all the background needed to
>understand why this draft exists.
+1. The history might be useful for the reader to understand what Glenn was thinking when he proposes the differences, but it completely gets in the way of finding those differences. If we reall want to have the history (I don't), move *all of it* to an appendix.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest