On 08/10/2013 08:03, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
> were. On the second point, the truth is that informational RFCs are [not]
> treated as actual requests for comments much any more, but are taken as
> fixed;
I've inserted the "not" that Ted certainly intended. But I think he raises
an important point. If the phrase "Request For Comments" no longer means
what it says, we need another RFC, with a provisional title of
"Request For Comments Means What It Says".
We still see comments on RFC 791 reasonably often, and I see comments
on RFC 2460 practically every day. That's as it should be.
So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of
resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone.
If that's the case, we have an even deeper problem than misunderstandings
of rough consensus.
otoh Ted's specific points on the draft are all valuable.
Brian