Re: 2119bis

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

 




On 9/1/2011 7:49 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
I do not believe there is any need to change RFC 2119.
...
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
...
1/ I am far from convinced that there is a need to update RFC 2119


Predictably, the draft has prompted quite a few postings that seem to be intent on re-inventing a core portion of the IETF documentation mechanism.

Folks should remember that this is a system that has been functioning quite well for some decades and I am not aware of any recent emergencies that justify starting over or making major changes.

The policy when seeking to change an established, essential, well-running systems is to make as /few/ changes as possible, not as /many/...

Ideally, this means making no changes at all, of course. That is, any proposal for a change MUST explain why the change is /essential/.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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]