hello john. On 2016-09-15 09:37, John C Klensin wrote:
Independent of where it is discussed (as long as it is on a public list), this I-D would be, at least IMO, a much more satisfactory basis for discussion if it demonstrated more convincingly that the author was aware of those earlier discussions and had considered them, rather than assuming (or appearing to assume) that no one had thought about these topics.
it was not my intention to ignore or belittle previous discussions. it just occurred to me as a frequent reader of RFCs that there is a large variation in quality how updates are documented. the idea was that some simple documentation guidelines might help to improve that, without necessarily being hard definitions on what exactly updates are, and how exactly they have to be documented.
i'd be more than happy to include these earlier discussions, but i am afraid if that involves going through a long list of mail archives, this simply is beyond the time commitment i can reasonably make. i'd be more than happy to have somebody co-authoring and filling in those gaps, but that of course assumes that somebody else would be willing to put in the effort of writing up this history.
thanks and cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx | | http://dret.net/netdret | | http://twitter.com/dret |