Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello john.

On 2016-09-15 09:37, John C Klensin wrote:
> Independent of where it is discussed (as
> long as it is on a public list), this I-D would be, at least
> IMO, a much more satisfactory basis for discussion if it
> demonstrated more convincingly that the author was aware of
> those earlier discussions and had considered them, rather than
> assuming (or appearing to assume) that no one had thought about
> these topics.

it was not my intention to ignore or belittle previous discussions. it 
just occurred to me as a frequent reader of RFCs that there is a large 
variation in quality how updates are documented. the idea was that some 
simple documentation guidelines might help to improve that, without 
necessarily being hard definitions on what exactly updates are, and how 
exactly they have to be documented.

i'd be more than happy to include these earlier discussions, but i am 
afraid if that involves going through a long list of mail archives, this 
simply is beyond the time commitment i can reasonably make. i'd be more 
than happy to have somebody co-authoring and filling in those gaps, but 
that of course assumes that somebody else would be willing to put in the 
effort of writing up this history.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |