From: Kent Landfield (kent@landfield.com)
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 10:02:21 CST
# In <3E25CCE7.5000501@Sonietta.blilly.com>, on 01/15/2003
# at 04:04 PM, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> said:
#
# >That's the same charter which says
#
# My reading of the charter is that we we to produce multiple
# documents, some of which could have been experimental in nature.
# Perhaps we need a base document that says must accept, should not
# generate until a supporting STD is passed and an experimental RFC that
# specifies raw UTF-8 plus gatewaying requirements. If we go that
# route, is there any reason that the experimental RFC could not be
# submitted first?
#
# --
# -----------------------------------------------------------
# Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
# Atid/2
# Team OS/2
# Team PL/I
# -----------------------------------------------------------
We have discussed getting a base document out and then following it up
with experimental rfcs. That seems to have been ignored multiple times.
It seems some here think they can do it all in one document and they
want to get it "right" the first time before we will get a chance to
issue anything. That's a mistake IMHO.
I'd much rather see this issue punted to an experimental RFC, to be
debated and issued after the base update to RFC1036 has been submitted.
As for submitting the experimental RFC first ... Why would that be any
different than the path we are currently on ? We are bogged down on this
and appear not to be making any real progress. I'd much rather see the
chairman ask the editor to leave this as a placeholder in the base
document. This would allow us to debate the issue and address it in
a subsequent follow-up document and not delay everything as we have been
for many months now...
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Search the Usenet FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ Search the RFC/FYI/STD/BCP Archive at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/