[rfc-i] Some comments draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00 and a suggestion

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Wed Nov 17 10:57:24 PST 2010

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:27:50PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> I think this is a very thoughtful proposal for moving forward, but I,  
> for one,  can't quite agree that the current document is the broad  
> proposal.

Perhaps I stated it too strongly.  Let me rephrase: it is a proposal
congruent with a broad construction of the RSE.  It might be some
details are wrong, but I regard that sort of detail as something that
could be determined once we're in agreement that the broad
construction is the right one.

Brian Carpenter argues elsewhere in this thread (or on this list,
anyway) that there's never been any doubt in his mind that the broad
construction is what was intended by RFC 5620.  If everyone agrees
with that, then actually this first stage I was talking about is a
waste of time.  Good.

> So, it would not be a case of writing the "narrow" proposal to compare  
> to this:  I believe it would require writing 2 separate documents.
> I'm not entirely sure we need to.

I will also mention that I don't personally care if we get an I-D with
some alternate proposal.  A sketch in an email would do, to me.  I'm
just trying to understand the alternatives.  (My nature is to run
screaming as fast as I can from most IETF process discussions, because
they depress me when they don't make me angry and frustrated.  But
some people -- some of whom may by now regret it -- pressed me to take
an interest, so I did.  Now I'm trying to understand what people think.)


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list