[rfc-i] RSE and RAOC: developing consensus, episode 2

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Feb 1 05:39:48 PST 2011


On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Having been part of this conversation for a while, I can see how some
> elements of the discussion to date have been incorporated.  But the
> current document elides too much, in my opinion, of the backstory to
> truly work as a standalone document or, sadly, even the full skeleton
> of one.

A quick response to only this point.

This document is not intended as a stand-alone document. I initially planned to send its content as a mail but figured that it may need another spin and might need to be referred to while the job descriptions and 5620bis are being developed.

This beast is there to make sure the basic agreements are captured. I would expect that 5620bis would be a bit more verbose on the backstory (we can ask a future editor).

Does that work?

--Olaf


________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20110201/5723787f/attachment.p7s>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list