At 16:34 +0000 11/20/05, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

>
> er... the IETF doesn't do "interoperability"... it may demand
> that implementations are interoperable, but it does "do" that
> work.


What I meant is that interoperability is what it best talks about.

> what -IS- important is documenting choices and options. what was
> tried and why.


That would separate the IETF, an engineering organization, from a
standards body, wouldn't it?

> RFC == Request For Comments ... getting ideas into a persistant,
> available, public archive is critical. even bad ideas, false leads,
> and dead ends deserve to be documented ... if only to show others WHY
> we ended up where we did.


That is what I feel too. But, like what NAT and split brain DNS have
done to end-to-end uniqueness and coherency, time may have passed by
the notion of the RFCs being what just that. I think that's as much
a fault of the IETF (lack of education/outreach) as the vendor
community (wants easy to consume standards).

> i want a persistant archive of everything... even the goofy.


You would, Bill, you would.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

3 months to the next trip. I guess it's finally time to settle down and
find a grocery store.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: