comments on the architecture document

yakov@watson.ibm.com Thu, 30 April 1992 14:26 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01417; 30 Apr 92 10:26 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16837; 30 Apr 92 10:31 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16833; 30 Apr 92 10:31 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa01199; 30 Apr 92 9:57 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id ab01191; 30 Apr 92 9:54 EDT
Received: from watson.ibm.com by BBN.COM id aa09782; 30 Apr 92 9:53 EDT
Received: from yktvmz.watson.ibm.com by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0574; Thu, 30 Apr 92 08:50:39 EDT
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 08:49:45 EDT
From: yakov@watson.ibm.com
To: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, idpr-wg@bbn.com
Subject: comments on the architecture document
Message-ID: <9204301031.aa16833@NRI.Reston.VA.US>

Ref:  Your note of Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:38:09 -0400

>The IETF process does not insist on everything being perfect
>before going to PS.

I am not aiming at making the document perfect. Having
a good document should be just fine. However, I certainly
object to publishing a document that has any of the following
properties:

(1) self contradictions
(2) one-sided presentations
(3) ambiguities
(4) claims without factual support
(5) technically incorrect statements

The comments I made on the Architecture document show that
the document has all five of the above properties. The IETF
process, as you correctly pointed out, shall not insist on
perfect documents. However, it shall insist on documents that
are not self-contradicting, don't give one-sided presentations,
are unambiguous, don't make unsupported claims, and don't
carry technically incorrect statements.
Yakov.