Re: Considerations Considerations Section

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



But, isn't that a paradox?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > We should consider adding this by default to all draft templates:

    > <section anchor="cestcon" title="Considerations Considerations">
    > <t>Considerations considerations are not considered in this memo.</t>
    > </section>

    > On 30/09/2017 06:39, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
    >> Dear Dave,
    >>
    >> to be able to consider all considerations not yet considered and should be considered in potential considerations sections, would you please consider to provide a considerations draft for discussion.
    >>
    >> Mehmet
    >>
    >>> -----Original Message-----
    >>> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
    >>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:09 PM
    >>> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
    >>> Subject: Re: Considerations Considerations Section
    >>>
    >>> On 29 September 2017 at 16:02, Phillip Hallam-Baker
    >>> <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Given that the solution to all problems seems always to have a new
    >>>>> Considerations Section, I'd like to propose that all new I-Ds
    >>>>> published have a Considerations Considerations Section, which
    >>>>> provides considerations over what else might be considered when
    >>>>> considering the considerations not yet considered in the other
    >>>>> considerations sections.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I believe this can only help us consider many problems solved.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> All that the considerations sections do is to break out material that
    >>>> has to be called out to the attention of different groups so that they
    >>>> don't have to read the entire draft every time.
    >>>>
    >>>> As the IETF becomes more process driven and the processes make more
    >>>> sense, this is expected and an improvement.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I would like to move to a machine readable IANA section at some future
    >>>> incarnation of xml2rfc.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> This sounds like a fine idea, all things considered.
    >>>
    >>> Dave.
    >>
    >>
    >>


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]