[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco.com
Tue Nov 16 22:33:29 PST 2010


Perhaps we can cast this as a series of questions:

1. Do we have a clear understanding of (and agreement about) the model 
   proposed in RFC 5260? If not, why not?

2. Does RFC 5620bis (or derivative in-progress versions thereof) 
   describe the same model in the whole with some variations, and do 
   we understand what those variations are?

3. Has Glenn explained why those variations or modifications were 
   introduced (or proposed)?

Otherwise, I do agree that this can quickly turn into an excercise of
"whisper a secret in your ear, pass it on" with (un) predictable 
outcomes.

I very much agree that we should stop complaining about the form and 
the size of the first version and focus on the core ideas and argue
about those. I know that's hard to do, but I don't see a good 
alternative other than one that takes us back 10 months in time.

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list