On 9/19/11 20:27 , Donald Eastlake wrote: > I think a wiki per RFC with any sort of official IETF status is a bad > idea that would create many cesspools of controversy. 6393 of them at present count... It should not go unremarked that 6393 updates an existing document and performs a standards action apparently without much controversy. yet avails itself of the filter our process provides. joel > Donald > > On 9/19/11, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 9/19/11 8:14 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >>> +1 >>> I also support the idea of every RFC havving the associated wiki. >> >> I don't. I'm basically in Paul's camp, although I don't think the >> greatest risk is that there'd be a negative impact on how the >> organization will be perceived by the community (although I agree >> that there's considerable risk of that). I wouldn't want to >> provide a forum for contentious discussions will never, ever end, >> that nothing will ever be resolved, and that people who can't >> accept organizational decisions will continue to fight those >> battles on the wiki. >> >> I think there's value in wikis to which people can contribute >> implementation and deployment notes, but only if there's a way >> to head off endless wars about stuff that's already been resolved >> by the IETF. >> >> Melinda >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf