On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process >> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen, >> so fewer words is better. > > I think that's actually a pretty terrible reason. Well, I think its an ok reason for not fully answering Dave's question in this case, given the latitude offered by RFC 3933. Tactical reticence like this would not be a reason to adopt anything, I agree. > The goal is > not to get the proposal through, the goal is to improve > something. That said, while I don't like change just for the > sake of change I think that change for the sake of betterment is > a very good thing indeed. The main thing is that I've been trying > to figure out where the harm would be here and I haven't been > able to identify anything substantive. I'd be good with giving > this a limited run and seeing how it goes. Great. S. > > Melinda > >