Hi Martin, I thank you for your help and comments, it will help me for future. comments in line: On 6/11/12, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is no substiantial difference between old discussions and recent > discussions. Referencing an argument from an earlier discussion rather > than repeating it is often an improvement with a significant potential to > actually save time, and zero risk to waste time (compared to repeating > the exact same previous arguments in a new message). > I agree with you, but only if the reference was pointed by date or subject, so the all readers can follow the current discussion and reference. also if the it was copied from the history (if short discussion) forward to the current it will be useful, but overall mentioning the subject/date of discussion is important. >> >> We should *reference* mostly RFCs in our discussion, because RFCs are >> correct resource. > > If RFCs were correct, we would neither need an Errata process, nor > maturity levels, nor -bis documents. > > "RFCs are correct" is a bold and dangerous presumption. Many RFCs > are vague or even ambigous, and they may contain numerous implications > that are non-obvious to a number of readers, and sometimes non-obvious > to implementors and document authors). I just mentioned that to compare RFC with discussion list. In your refering if the RFC maybe vague and it is the product of the discussions, so what about the discussion as a reference. > > All that can be said about standard track RFCs, is that they're the result > of the IETF consensus process. And the primary focus of the IETF consensus > process is to resolve dissent (technical or procedural objections), > _not_ correctness. Some level of confidence about correctness can be > obtained > by creating independent implementations and demonstrate that they interop > on the implemented features, but results are mixed, and most interop > tests are lacking (test only a fraction of the features and only a fraction > of the implementations in the installed base, and rarely "border cases" > of unusual encodings). > IMO the RFC is result of both; WG discussions first, and then consensus process. Regarding confidence issue I agree with you, > > -Martin > Best regards Abdussalam ==========