Re: Initial Structure

Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Thread Previous | Thread Next

From:

Kurt D. Starsinic

Date:

July 26, 2000 15:45

Subject:

Re: Initial Structure

Message ID:

20000726183754.P16172@O2.chapin.edu

On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 10:04:04AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> We still need an RFC format.  Dan was going to come up with a draft
> format.  If he wants to punt, I'll do it tonight.  Right now I'm
> picturing:
>  - Abstract
>  - Description of the change
>  - List of possible implementations (doesn't have to be at the bit
>    level unless you're talking a bit-level change) that were discussed,
>    with quick summary of pros and cons.
>  - Suggested choice of implementation.

    I don't think these final two items belong in the RFC; in the best of
all possible worlds, this wouldn't even be discussed at the time an RFC
is created.  I feel that an RFC should list issues to be considered in
implementing a solution, such as scalability and security.

    I also think that a justification for the proposed change should be
part of the RFC.

    Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic (kstar@orientation.com) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
|      `The right to be heard does not automatically include the right      |
|       to be taken seriously.' -- Hubert Humphrey                          |

Thread Previous | Thread Next