Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 02 January 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F010F1A1B87 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:30:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lSmv4Ng1XmcJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A481A1B80 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PGU3IG79R400BM8F@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 08:25:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PGT6J83YLS00005K@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:25:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01PGU3IEQ05S00005K@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:13:09 +0100" <631B2422-3C00-46CC-9D10-E3AED644683C@tzi.org>
References: <54A45EA8.2020408@dial.pipex.com> <54A69B1E.60903@gmx.de> <631B2422-3C00-46CC-9D10-E3AED644683C@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/80A-qBkPyF6uWQMEuNQLHgF4NPU
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:30:36 -0000

> TL;DR: if the IETF falls into the usual fallacy of perfection [1], it may not be possible to do what we set out to do.

I would characterize it as letting the perfect be the enemy of the more than
good enough, but regardless, it's SSDD.

				Ned