Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  *> 
  *> * though I wish that WGs that shut down without producing a protocol
  *> document would at least write up a brief RFC that explains what it 
  *> tried to do and why it shut down - was the problem "too hard" or 
  *> infeasible, was the subject too politically contentious (and what
  *> were the divisive positions),  were there found to be adequate 
  *> solutions already developed, did people lose interest, or what?  
  *> but sometimes even this much reporting is too difficult.
  *> 
  *> 

Strongly agree.

What we don't want to do is to measure productivity by page count or even
RFC count.  Hey, I could have written the RSVP RFC as five documents;
would that be a win?  I don't think so.

Bob Braden


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]