On 7/21/14, 3:33 PM, Chris Newman wrote:
--On June 19, 2014 18:11:55 -0400 "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:
I think almost every section should have a rationale. For example, 3.5 could
say "because it's at the wrong layer and has been the subject of security
weaknesses" :)
My editorial preference is to have rationale separated into an Appendix, and
keep the core document focused on technical guidance. The rationale isn't
necessary for implementers/operators. And for protocol designers, the rationale
may be useful separate from the technical content. I think RFC 2083 is a great
example of this content/rationale separation. I also don't like to waste time
arguing over details of rationale text, so moving it to a non-normative
Appendix can help with that goal.
This is only a preference. Getting the document done is more important to me,
so if the editor considers this too much work, the current structure is also
fine with me.
Personally I think it would be confusing in this document to do what you
suggest. In RFC 2083 the rationale text is much longer, whereas here we
have a sentence briefly justifying each recommendation. Moving those
paragraphs to the end would make it harder for folks to read and
understand the document, IMHO.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
