[rfc-i] Minutes posted

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Nov 9 09:27:37 PST 2012


Heather:

> On 11/9/12 11:05 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> The minutes say:
>> 
>> * room definitely split between people who feel a change is necessary at some level (argument about the word "necessary") and people who feel change is not necessary at this time
>> 
>> This does not capture my experience.  I would say that people think it is not necessary, but people think it is very highly desirable for a new format to be available.  And, fairly soon.
> 
> Thanks, Russ.  That word "necessary" elicited some interesting feedback.
> 
> With regards to making "a new format available", I think this reflects
> the ongoing confusion regarding which format we're talking about
> changing.  I read your statement as your understanding of a community
> desire to make additional rendered formats available more than community
> desire to make a single revised canonical format available.  Did I
> understand that correctly?

No.  I am not trying to express my view.  I am trying to have the minutes reflect what I heard in the room.

You could capture the discussion regarding submission format vs. publication format, but that did not seem to apply to this sentence.

> Any changes made will not happen in one fell swoop, so I don't know if
> I'll hit the "fairly soon" mark in anyone's minds or not.  Actually, I'm
> pretty sure I will totally miss the mark with some, be fine with others,
> and so on.  I will certainly continue to move as quickly as seems
> reasonable, taking in to account what both the RFC Editors and the
> communities of interest can handle.

I was addressing the "at this time" portion of the sentence in the draft minutes.

People were talking about the RFC Production Center being able to produce RFCs in the new format about a year after a decision on the new format.  That is the new format is desired in the near term.

Russ



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list