IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Writing Assignments from the March 11 meeting

wright@sparkle.lbl.gov (Russ Wright) Thu, 21 March 1991 00:38 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA14289; Wed, 20 Mar 91 19:38:34 -0500
Received: from sparkle.lbl.gov by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA14285; Wed, 20 Mar 91 19:38:29 -0500
Message-Id: <9103210038.AA14285@merit.edu>
Received: from b50b-cnr9.lbl.gov by sparkle.lbl.gov with SMTP (PP) id <2354-0@sparkle.lbl.gov>; Wed, 20 Mar 1991 16:38:17 -0800
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 16:38:25 -0000
From: wright@sparkle.lbl.gov
To: skh
Subject: Re: Writing Assignments from the March 11 meeting
Cc: disi

> 	I'm new to the DISI group.  Has anyone thought about making two
> documents out of the X.500 survery document - one with product descriptions
> by authors/implementors and a second with user comments.     Sometimes
> it is very valuable to read a comment from another user before trying
> a pieces of software.  The editors of these documents could deny any
> support of the comments.   Comments the DISI working group felt strongly
> about could be entered from the working group.

I agree that user comments can be useful.  Putting user comments into the RFC, 
however, would be asking for trouble (even if we put a disclaimer at the top 
of the RFC).  

One of the things we can put into the RFC is pointer to useful mail archives 
and e-mail lists.  I know this is not an ideal solution, but it will allow us 
to produce an OBJECTIVE RFC.
 
								Russ Wright
								Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
        wright@lbl.gov

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email