Hi Paul, I guess we can question ourselves the same way in many other documents ... The importance of having documents is part of the IETF "working mode". Is our way to say, here there is a consensus on this specific topic. I guess is not my final decision if it will become and RFC or not, but it will not be fair not following the same path for this document as for many others. That said, the original idea has been, since I was pointed out for editing this document, to follow exactly the same process as with many other documents, technical and administrative. Regards, Jordi > De: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:43:42 -0800 > Para: Richard Shockey <richard@xxxxxxxxxx>, IETF list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: FW: I-D > ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt > > At 2:28 PM -0500 1/19/06, Richard Shockey wrote: >> It's a classic example of the current IETF fashion for process over >> substance. > > Fully agree. What is the justification for this becoming an RFC? > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf