Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether
>> the final result is more clear overall.
Dave> What about protecting the installed base for the existing
Dave> spec?
I think that is not a useful criteria when we are talking about an
informative note. I think that criteria matters somewhat more when we
are talking about depricating a feature but retaining it, although
even then I think the bar would be reasonably low. The installed base
will continue to work.
I think you are assuming a more constrained discussion than what I've been
seeing on this thread. The thread has discussed everything from removing the
rule, to redefining it, to declaring it "deprecated", to adding some
commentary text.
It appears you are only talking about the last, although I for one missed
that. (For reference, when I said "change the specification" I mean normative
change.)
Although I've seen some postings against even having a comment added to the
text, my own reading of the postings is that there is a reasonable consensus
that it would be ok.
My own view is that comments can be helpful and are, at worst, typically
rather benign. Indeed, the IETF approach towards specification writing is
rather friendly towards including whatever comments folk feel might be
helpful, modulo the obvious danger that too many comments can wind up
obscuring a document. (And, no, I do not think that that is a danger here.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf