In message <0F8DC6A4B302BD40621C69AF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, John C Klensin writes: >Brian, > >We agree about the desirability of making sure than some things >are explicitly documented and explicitly part of what gets >reviewed. But I continue to believe, as I have believed for >years, that adding more and more mandatory material to RFCs or >I-Ds is not the best solution to that particular problem. > >From where I sat, the problem was trying to ensure that a WG thought about an issue. Neither mandatory material nor checkoff boxes accomplish that, but I think the former is often more useful because material in an I-D is visible to the entire WG. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf