ID-nits [was Re: suggestions (voting)]

[john.loughney@nokia.com]

Hi all,

> > Why do we need the ID-nits document, or rather: why does it need
> > to be so long? Obviously part of the problem is that people are
> > unable to write correctly formatted text (hence the word nits). It
> > would be interesting to know just how much time is spent by all
> > involved doing clean-up usually left to software. I.e is this a
> > real problem or not?

I like the NITS document, I wish we had more documents like it.  I think
that the IESG SHOULD quote / point to a document when invoking some=20
decision based on policy.  For example, the IESG has been discussing
some statement on protocol extensibility, so if this was published, then
the IESG could say RFCXXXX says 'Though shall not do abusive things in
the name of extensibility ...' and this then would at least be clear.
Currently, there tends to be a lot of mumbling or complaining about
protocol extensibility, but it is very hard to sort out.

> Now even the list of nits is large.
>=20
> What does that tell us?

The IETF needs a good de-lousing?=20

John