Marshall, RFCs are living documents as well, though the process for change is somewhat cumbersome. There are examples of RFCs that have been updated many times in the last few years. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] --> On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks --> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:27 PM --> To: jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: I-D --> ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt --> --> Speaking just for myself : --> --> I think that there is a strong benefit to having an agreed --> upon set --> of parameters --> for new meeting locations. --> --> Having said that, this may not be appropriate for an RFC. Maybe it --> should be a "living document" on a web page --> or wiki, as is being done / considered for mailing list anti-SPAM --> suggestions. Maybe a new class of --> IETF document publication is needed. --> --> Regards --> Marshall Eubanks --> --> On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: --> --> > 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 mailing list --> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf