[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Mar 26 05:10:02 PDT 2012

On 3/26/2012 9:06 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
> I was objecting to two things:
> - that there are only 3 main groups of similar positions (and I suggested there
> was at least 1 more that many would be happy with for a while at least),

I was quite surprised and delighted to see Tim come away from our exchange with 
a posting that attempts to factor the topic into major sub-topics.

I read them as suggesting a partitioning.  Without wordsmithing or scrutinizing 
the fine-grained details of the 3 he listed, I thought/think they are plausible 
points, whether they are exhaustive or not, and whether they are perfectly 
phrased or not.

If someone thinks there are more points, please list them.

If folks think the wording/focus should be different, please provide alternatives.

That is, I think the partitioning exercise is needed here, since discussion is 
all over the map, servicing a variety of different agendas.

Let's at least chart out the agendas...


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list