On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Indeed, thanks for the correction. > 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. > > And what are the RFC numbers for the comments? If none, as I suspect, then the comments aren't the same status as the documents--that's fine for RFC 791 and 2460, but it is not clear that Pete's document falls into the same class. I would argue it does not. > 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. > > Archival may not mean "engraved in stone", but it does impute status. If we want, as a community, to create an archival document on this topic, then we should take on the work. Pete's document is a good spark for the conversation that might kick off that work, but I personally don't think it is a good output document for that; if it is meant to be a spark, I don't see why moving it into an archival series is useful for us at this stage. regards, Ted > otoh Ted's specific points on the draft are all valuable. > > Brian >
