Re: Alternate entry document model (was: Re: IETF processes (wasRe:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))

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

 



Hi -

> From: "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Alternate entry document model (was: Re: IETF processes (wasRe:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels))
...
> So whether we have XStandard, YStandard or ZStandard and how we move
> between them is irrelevant (to most of the world).
> 
> Hence my focus is on how we can get an RFC published in the first place, in a
> more
> timely manner with, ideally, an improvement in the quality.
...

Ironically, the more we emphasize improving the "quality" of RFCs, the more
we reinforce the myth that all RFCs are standards.  I higher percentage
of obviously immature, speculative, or even outright garbage documents
might help dispel the myth.  :-) * 0.5

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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