develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Initial Structure

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Kurt D. Starsinic
July 26, 2000 15:45
Re: Initial Structure
Message ID:
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.

* Kurt Starsinic ( ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
|      `The right to be heard does not automatically include the right      |
|       to be taken seriously.' -- Hubert Humphrey                          |

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About