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

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald@alvestrand.no
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:50:39 +0100


--On tirsdag, november 26, 2002 12:34:14 +0200 john.loughney@nokia.com 
wrote:

> 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
> 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.

oh yes - the main reason why a draft statement has not appeared is that the 
IESG has been unable to fully converge....

At this stage, I think it would be better to draft 
something-mostly-appropriate and let the community hammer on it for a while.
>
>> Now even the list of nits is large.
>>
>> What does that tell us?
>
> The IETF needs a good de-lousing?
>
> John
>