[rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs
wjhns1 at hardakers.net
Wed Feb 17 06:38:38 PST 2021
Christian Huitema <huitema at huitema.net> writes:
> Maybe we should not overthink that. Wes was asking for a sample of
> "good" RFCs, letting people respond with whatever their personal
> choice is for "good". So let's do that. Once he has gotten several
> responses, it will be up to him to read the RFCs mentioned in the
> response and try to analyze what made those "good". That's a lot of
> work, and I am glad that he is undertaking it!
I deliberately left out good, yes. And I do want to see if there are
some common characteristics across them.
It's been long enough (conversation has slowed) that I can reveal I'm
most interested in "readability" and "understandability". But I was
curious if the ones people suggested would be good from a technical
point of view (good work) vs readability. IE, are there RFCs that
people consider "good" but are not well written or easily understood?
But in the end, the discussions both public and comments sent directly
to me have largely talked about readability which has been highly helpful.
More information about the rfc-interest