--On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:41 -0800 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Also, if it gets published as an RFC, it is going to be viewed > as a "specification". I think it's best to avoid that and > just have a wiki. I would be surprised if this topic > continues to be as active area of discussion in the future, > making it unlikely that there would be new RFCs published. Oddly, although I think some clarifying language about intent and the difference between preferences and requirements would be in order, I think "specification" --of information that the IETF hoped that a sponsor, local host, the secretariat, or someone else would provide or help the community to obtain-- is entirely in order. I see little, if anything, on his list that is not asked for, in one form or another, at almost every meeting (unless we have been to the location already, and sometimes then). I see little on that list that hasn't been routinely supplied at least a few times in the past at prior IETF meetings or at other international meetings I attend. By and large, when things are left out, that is the result of accidental omission rather than intention... and the accidental omissions cause unnecessary problems or concerns. By organizing the questions, as Wes is doing, we can eliminate some of those difficulties with (at least if we are clear about intent) little marginal cost to anyone. I do note something that Wes, by only listing the questions, omits, which is that there are several of these questions to which "not really relevant here" or "we don't have a clue" would be perfectly reasonable answers... and would actually provide information. If, as you suggest, the topic is not likely to be discussed regularly --presumably, given this community, because the list of questions is fairly stable-- to me that reinforces the desirability of publishing the list in readily-accessible (and, as others have pointed out, compact and printable) form rather than making it undesirable. > Further, is this something we really want in the historical > record. Why not? If there is anything on the list that can be construed as "we think your city is a bad place" or "we think hosts and facilities are out to screw us", it should be revised so those inferences are not possible. Actually, that is another advantage of having a standard, published, list of questions: it demonstrates that we ask the same questions of everyone rather than singling out particular locations for suspicion. If hosts, facilities, or local people think some of them just aren't applicable, they simply note that and move on (again, a little more introductory text might be in order, but I think the principle is just fine). best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf