Re: Uneccesary slowness.

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

 



The size of an RFC has nothing whatsoever to do with its impact. It takes
time for people review, test, document problems, and propose alterations.
That's the point of delay and a gradual process.

Anyone can give you a one page document that will break just about 
everything. Because its only one page doesn't mean it should be less well 
tested and reviewed. Nor does it mean that its somehow easier to test and 
review. 

		--Dean

On Sat, 14 May 2005, Will McAfee wrote:

> I think the minimum time before a document can pass to another
> standards-track state is ridiculously long.  If an rfc is huge, I can
> understand that.  But to sweep that over all of them?  A two-page
> proposed standard can take an absolutely ridiculous amount of time to
> pass through!  I say we have variations based on how long the document
> is.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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