[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Nov 17 08:46:59 PST 2010
At 2:21 PM +0800 11/17/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>Practically speaking, you (and pretty much everyone else) have actually cast this exercise as an iterative guessing game for Glenn, with only guidance about form and precious little about substance.
I call bullshit, Dave. Glenn and I have spoken many times about substance, and never about form. Similarly, Glenn has told me that he has gotten many ideas about the substance for his report from many people in one-on-one discussions, both face-to-face and on the phone.
His first output of "this exercise" was in a form where those of us who worked with him on the substance could not easily find the substance in the form he chose. We had that problem with the second (and, if you count his brief presentation in Beijing as a form, third) rounds. Those of us who care about the substance of his proposals need a form where we can be sure that we understand what we are reading; to that end, he has agreed to try again.
>We task the guy with writing something and he talks to lots of people. 8 months later, he produces the requested set of recommendations, within the requested scope.
We suspect, but cannot be sure of, the latter.
>He gets essentially no commentary on the substance of what he has written except about its deficiencies in form or style.
Again, I call bullshit. If you cannot see suggestions about substance from (at least) Ted, Leslie, Andrew, and I, then we have nothing to discuss. If your statement is "the current draft is clear enough for me", that's fine; you seem to be in a small minority.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest