Re: [apps-discuss] Multipart/report, draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis-01.txt

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 7/28/2011 2:10 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> ...and RFC3464 is showing updated by two other documents.  I imagine we'd
> >> have to sort out how to resolve all of that, so maybe this is a more
> >> heavyweight change than I'd hoped.
> >
> > I have to ask: So what? So let's say we have to do a 3462bis that resets
> > things to proposed.
> >
> > Why is this a big deal? We do it, six months later we advance the
> > specification back to draft - this should be easy since we only need
> > to review the consequences, if any, of the change we're making.


> The transaction cost of having an additional process through the IETF/IESG is
> never trivial.

Actually, I can point at any number of cases where it was pretty painless. In
particular, small revisions to existing widely deployed standards seem to fare
pretty well. Of course there are exceptions, like the revision to the Sieve
base spec, where someone gets a hair up their butt and files a totally
inappropriate DISCUSS, but one things for sure: Doing nothing guarantees
nothing will be done.

> I know you know this; I don't know why you think it's a small deal.

Perhaps because it *should* be a small deal. And to the extent it isn't, I'm
not sure I see the value in trying to accomodate brokenness.

				Ned