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

Ted Hardie ted.ietf at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 05:49:18 PST 2011


On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf at nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>
> 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?

If we agree on what the consensus is and that it needs to be captured
in 5620bis, okay.
But the covering email was about "zooming in on consensus", so I was surprised
to see some of the pieces we'd discussed at length left out.

regards,

Ted

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list