Hi John, Harald, On Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400 John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark Smith <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-ietf-mis > >sion-01.txt > > > > I haven't been all that involved in the IETF to have a strong > > opinion on the draft. That being said, it sounds good. > > Harald (et al) should be commended for this work. Completely agree. > > > Regarding deleting the appendix, I'd suggest not doing so, as > > I think it fits the "Relevant" clause, namely : > > > > "Note that it does not mean "correct" or "positive" - a > > report of an experiment that failed, or a specification that > > clearly says why you should not use it in a given situation, > > can be highly relevant - for deciding what NOT to do." > > > > I think including the possible mission statements that > > weren't adequate will help further clarify the one that is. > > I must disagree with Mark and agree with Harald. Inclusion > of > Appendix A in _this_ document would detract from the sense of > closure, and give the impresssion that the issues it mentions > are still open. > > > If the appendix is retained, and it isn't too much effort, > > expanded explanations of why the other mission statement > > candidates weren't satisfactory or adequate may be of some > > value. > > I'd be happy to see a separate document describing the > process of > reaching this statement of mission. > I'd be happy with this approach. I think sometimes preserving the "whys" can be as useful as the "whats". ("Why ?" is one of my favourite questions :-) ) Regards, Mark. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf